Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. and Shantanu Kemkar, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.4792 of 2005 (PIL) (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.1.2015
Held : After analysing the gamut of decisions, it is held that right does not give licence to anyone to create noise pollution and muchless force the captive listeners to suffer the same. That, none can claim an absolute right to suspend others rights or disturb their basic human rights and fundamental rights. (1991)1 SCC 598 and (2000)7 SCC 282 followed. AIR 1999 Cal. 15 discussed.
[Para 2
(2) Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 -- Rr.3, 4, 5(1) and 5(3) -- M.P. Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985 -- S.13 -- for prevention of noise pollution and compliance of statutory provisions -- relief sought by way of writ petition as PIL -- prayer allowed -- concerned authorities directed to ensure strict compliance of provisions.
Held : Prayer clause 7(b) need not detain us. We have no hesitation in accepting the said relief to the extent of the legal exposition in the aforesaid decisions and following that we direct the concerned authorities to ensure strict compliance of the restrictions and to take all precautionary measures to prohibit violation of any of the provisions of the Central Legislation, Central Rules or State Regulations on the subject.
The State Authorities are, therefore, obliged to adhere to these norms without any exception in future. The Commissioner of Police / Superintendent of Police and the Collector of the concerned District shall be personally responsible to regulate these matters. The State Authorities, however, shall not grant permission/licence for use of sound producing instruments beyond the permissible limits and also ensure that any violation of the Central Rules of 2000 should be proceeded strictly and in accordance with law.
[Para 29
Thus, when any application for permission to put up a Pandal on a busy street is received, that must be considered with utmost circumspection and should not be granted mechanically. (2000)7 SCC 282, (2005)5 SCC 733, (2005)8 SCC 794, (2009)2 SCC 442, (2005)8 SCC 796, (2009)15 SCC 351 and (2004)13 SCC 61 followed.
[Paras 31 & 32 to 37
(3) Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985 (M.P.) -- S.13 -- Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Ruiles, 2000 -- Rr.3 and 5(3) -- validity of section 13 -- will have to be tested in context of rules 3 and 5(3) -- provisions of section 13 -- being inconsistent and repugnant to Central Legislation and Rules framed thereunder -- as well as having overriding affect over these rules -- section 13 is ultra vires.
Held : The validity of section 13 of the Adhiniyam of 1985 will have to be tested in the context of rule 5 of the Central Noise Pollution Rules of 2000. No doubt, the Central Noise Pollution Rules of 2000 have come into force much after the Adhiniyam of 1985 was introduced. At the same time, being Central Rules framed under the Central enactment, will have to prevail. Indisputably, the entire subject regarding the use of loudspeakers and public address system and sound producing instruments is now regulated by rule 5 of the Central Rules of 2000. Besides the time limits for use of such devices is specified in rule 5, even the sound level generated by the loud speakers/public address system and sound producing instrument has been restricted.
The exemption to use of loud speakers or public address system and the like during night hours between 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight on or during any cultural or religious festival, must, therefore, be limited to 15 days in all “during a calendar year”. Whereas, section 13(1) of the Adhiniyam of 1985 refers to 29 days in a calendar year for social and religious festivals; and at any religious place or premises where it is being made as a tradition. The exemption so provided in the Adhiniyam of 1985 is ex facie in conflict with the outer limit specified by sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Central Noise Pollution Rules of 2000. To that extent, sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Adhiniyam of 1985 will have to be declared as ultra vires being repugnant to the Central Noise Pollution Rules of 2000 on the same subject.
Indeed, sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Adhiniyam of 1985 gives power to the prescribed authority to grant exemption from the provisions of sections 4 to 7 for such period, occasions and in such areas, as may be specified in the permission. However, that exemption cannot be de hors the restriction specified by rule 3 read with rule 5 of the Central Noise Pollution Rules of 2000.
[Para 26
Since the substantive exemption provision, section 13(1) as a whole, cannot be preserved or saved, for the same reasons, even the procedural provision in the form of section 13(2) of the Adhiniyam cannot be saved.
(4) Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985 (M.P.) -- Ss.4, 5, 6 and 7 -- provisions of these sections -- not conflict about timing, place or noise limit as specified in Central Enactment and Rules. [Para 28
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-19¼1½¼d½] 21 rFkk 51d¼N½ && mica/kks ds v/khu izR;kHkwr vf/kdkj && dk izHkko && /ofu iznw”k.k l`ftr djus ds fy, && ,slk vf/kdkj fdlh dks Hkh vuqKfIr iznku ugh djrk && dksbZ Hkh vU;ksa ds vf/kdkjksa dks fuyafcr djus dk vkR;afrd vf/kdkj dk nkok ugh dj ldrk ;k muds cqfu;knh ekuoh; vf/kdkjks rFkk ewy vf/kdkjks dks fo{kqC/k ugh dj ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu.kZ;ksa dk Loj ifjlj fo’ys”k.k djus ds i’pkr] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd vf/kdkj fdlh dks Hkh /ofu iznw”k.k l`ftr djus ds fy, vkSj foeksfgr Jksrkvksa dks mls lgu djus ds fy, ck/; djus dh vuqKfIr iznku ugh djrkA D;ksafd] dksbZ Hkh vU;ksa ds vf/kdkjksa dks fuyafcr djus dk vkR;afrd vf/kdkj dk nkok ;k muds cqfu;knh ekuoh; vf/kdkjks vkSj ewy vf/kdkjks dks fo{kqC/k ugh dj ldrkA ¼1991½1 ,l lh lh 598 rFkk ¼2000½7 ,l lh lh 282 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1999 dy- 15 foosfprA ¼iSjk 2
¼2½ /ofu iznw”k.k ¼fofu;eu vkSj fu;a=.k½ fu;e] 2000 && fu-3] 4] 5¼1½ rFkk 5¼3½ && e-iz- dksykgy fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 13 && /ofu iznw”k.k fuokj.k vkSj dkuwuh mica/kks ds vuqikyu ds fy, && yksdfgr eqdnek ds :i esa fjV ;kfpdk }kjk vuqrks”k pkgk x;k && izkFkZuk Lohdkj dh xbZ && lacf/kr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks mica/kks dk vuqikyu lqfuf’pr fd, tkus ds fy, funsf’kr fd;k x;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gedks izkFkZuk [kaM+ 7¼[k½ ds fo”k; esa fu:) jgus dh vko’;drk ugh gSA gesa mi;qDr fu.kZ;ksa esa dh xbZ fof/kd O;k[;k dh lhek rd mi;ZqDr vuqrks”k Lohdkj djus es dksbZ fgpfdpkgV ugh gS vkSj mudk vuqlj.k dj lacf/kr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd fucZ/kuksa dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu djuk lqfuf’pr djsa vkSj bl fo”k; esa dsnzh; fo/kku] dsnzh; fu;eksa ;k jkT; fofu;euksa ds dksbZ mica/kksa dk vfRkØe.k izfrf”k) djus ds fy, leLr iwokZik; djsA
jkT; izkf/kdkjhx.k fcuk fdlh viokn ds Hkfo”; es bu ekuanM+ks dk ikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gSA iqfyl vk;qDr@iqfyl v/kh{kd rFkk lacf/kr ftys dk dYkDVj bu fo”k;ks dks fu;af=r djus ds fy, O;fDrxr :i ls mŸkjnk;h gksaxsA jkT; izkf/kdkjhx.k] fQj Hkh /ofu mRiUu djus okys midj.k ds mi;ksx ds fy, vuqKs; lhek ls ijs vuqKk@vuqKfIr iznku ugh djsaxs vkSj 2000 ds dsanzh; fu;eksa ds dksbZ vfrØe.k ij fof/k ds vuqlkj dM+kbZ ls dk;Zokgh dh tkuk pkfg, Hkh lqfuf’pr djsaxsA
bl izdkj] tc O;Lr lM+d ij iaM+ky yxkus dh vuqKk ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu izkIr gksrk gS] ml ij vf/kdre lko/kkuh ls fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj ;a=or~ iznku ugha dh tkuh pkfg,A ¼2000½7 ,l lh lh 282] ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 733] ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 794] ¼2009½2 ,l lh lh 442] ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 796] ¼2009½15 ,l lh lh 351 rFkk ¼2004½13 ,l lh lh 61 vuqlfjrA ¼IkSjk 31 ,oa 32 ls 37
¼3½ dksykgy fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1985 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13 && /ofu iznw”k.k ¼fofu;eu vkSj fu;a=.k½ fu;e] 2000 && fu-3 rFkk 5¼3½ && /kkjk 13 dh fof/kekU;rk && fu;e 3 rFkk 5¼3½ ds lanHkZ esa ijh{k.k djuk gksxk && /kkjk 13 ds mica/k && dsanzh; fo/kku rFkk mlds vraxZr fojfpr fu;eksa ds vlaxr rFkk fo:) gksus ls && lkFk&gh&lkFk bu fu;eksa ij vfHkHkkoh izHkko j[kus ls && /kkjk 13 vf/kdkjkrhr gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % 1985 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh fof/kekU;rk dk ijh{k.k dsanh; /ofu iznw”k.k fu;e] 2000 ds fu;e 5 ds lanHkZ esa djuk gksxkA fu%lansg] 1985 ds vf/kfu;e ds izofrZr gksus ds cgqr i’pkr~ dsanzh; /ofu iznw”k.k fu;e] 2000 izo`Ÿk gq, gSA mlh le; ls] dsanzh; vf/kfu;efr ds v/khu dsanzh; fu;e fojfpr gks tkus ls vfHkHkkoh gksaxsA fufoZokfnr% /ofu foLrkjd vkSj yksd lacks/ku iz.kkyh rFkk /ofu mRiUu djus okys midj.kksa ds iz;ksx ls lacf/kr laiw.kZ fo”k; vc 2000 ds dsanzh; fu;eks ds fu;e 5 }kjk fofu;fer gSA blds vfrfjDr ,sls ;qDr lk/kuksa ds mi;ksx ds fy, le;lhek fu;e 5 esa fofufnZ”V gS] tSlk fd /ofu foLrkjd@yksd lacks/ku iz.kkyh /ofu mRiUu djus okys midj.kksa }kjk mRiUu /ofu Lrj fucaf/kr gSA ¼iSjk 23
/ofu&foLrkjd ;k yksd lacks/ku iz.kkyh vkSj blds lkeku ds iz;ksx ij jkf= ds nkSjku 10%00 cts jkf= 12%00 cts e/; jkf= rd fdlh lkaLd`frd ;k /kkfeZd ioZ ds nkSjku ^^dsySaMj o”kZ ds nkSjku^^ NwV lcdks feykdj 15 fnol rd lhfer gksuk pkfg,A tcfd] 1985 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½ dsySMaj o”kZ esa lkekftd ;k /kkfeZd ioksZ ds fy, 29 fnol dk mYys[k djrh gS] vkSj dksbZ ,sls /kkfeZd LFkku ;k ifjlj ij tgk¡ ;g ijaijk ds :i esa euk;k tkrk gSA 1985 ds vf/kfu;e es tSlh NwV micaf/kr dh xbZ gS og 2000 ds dsanzh; /ofu iznw”k.k fu;eksa ds fu;e 5 ds mifu;e ¼3½ }kjk fofufnZ”V ckgjh lhek ds izFken`”V~;k fojks/k esa gSA bl lhek rd] 1985 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ mlh fo”k; ij dsanzh; /ofu iznw”k.k fu;e] 2000 ds fo:) gksus ls vf/kdkjkrhr ?kksf”kr djUkk gksxhA
okLro esa 1985 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ /kkjk 4 ls 7 ds mica/kks ls ,slh dkykof/k] voljksa ij vkSj ,sls {ks=ks esa tSlk fd vuqKk esa fofufnZ”V gS] fofgr izkf/kdkjh dks NwV iznku djus dh ‘kfDr iznku djrh gSA fQj Hkh] ,slh NwV 2000 ds dsnzah; /ofu iznw”k.k fu;eksa ds fu;e 3 lgifBr fu;e 5 }kjk fofufnZ”V fucZ/kuksa ij lokj ugh dks ldrhA
tc NwV dk lkjHkwr mica/k] laiw.kZ /kkjk 13¼1½] ifjjf{kr ;k lqjf{kr ugh j[kh tk ldrh] mUgha dkj.kksa ls] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼2½ ds izfØ;kRed mica/k ds :i es Hkh lqjf{kr ugh j[ks tk ldrsA
¼4½ dksykgy fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e- 1985¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 4] 5] 6 rFkk 7 && bu /kkjkvksa ds mica/k && le;] LFkku ;k /ofu lhek ds fo”k; esa tSlk fd dsanzh; vf/kfu;fer vkSj fu;eks esa fofufnZ”V ds fo:) ugh gSA ¼iSjk 28
Khanwilkar, C.J. -- 1. The petitioner asserts that he is a well-known social worker and actively associated with many NGOs fighting for the cause of human dignity, civil liberty and social justice. He has filed this public interest petition for direction to the State Authorities to prevent the environmental noise pollution caused during the festive seasons, religious and social ceremonies spread over the year, by use of various sound amplifiers and other devices besides the noise pollution by factories, trains and aeroplanes. Further direction is sought to prevent other atrocities committed on the society in the name of religious festivals such as (a) traffic hazards by putting Pandals on busy streets (the number proliferating each year) in an indiscriminate manner, (b) theft of electricity with impunity for lighting and decoration of Pandals, resulting in loss to public exchequer and (c) extortion and intimidation of public by unscrupulous elements in the name of donation for the Pandals.
2. According to the petitioner, the citizens have a right to a decent environment and to live peacefully which includes right to sound sleep at night, to leisure and free locomotion during the day time. These are essential ingredients of the right to life guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner asserts that the mandate of Article 51A(g) obligates every citizen to protect and improve the environment. Reliance is placed on the exposition of the apex Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and others [(1991)1 SCC 598=AIR 1991 SC 420]. In Paragraph 7, the Court held that right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. It is contended that the use of various sound amplifiers during the festivals, social and cultural gatherings and, more particularly, if unregulated, inevitably causes health hazards and nuisance to the public. It entails in infringment of basic human rights and also fundamental rights of the captive listeners in the concerned locality. The petitioner has then placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1999 Cal.15=1998 SCC Online Cal.73], wherein the issues raised by the petitioner have been squarely dealt with in the context of right to practice and propagate one’s own religion. After analysing the gamut of decisions, it is held that right does not give licence to anyone to create noise pollution and muchless force the captive listeners to suffer the same. That, none can claim an absolute right to suspend others rights or disturb their basic human rights and fundamental rights. The petitioner has also placed reliance on another decision of the apex Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others [(2000)7 SCC 282],wherein it is held that sleep is restorative time of life and sound night’s sleep is crucial to good health. The Court held that no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. Further, in a civilised society in the name of religion, actitvities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during daytime or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. Rights of others are also required to be honoured. The Court also highlighted that the problem of noise has become a very serious issue – having many evil effects including danger to health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, gastro-intestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance etc. It also affects animals alike. Sometim
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
