1. Petition against noise pollution from temple loudspeakers and activities exceeding statutory limits under Noise Pollution Rules, 2000. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 78189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
T.R. Chandramohan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police Kollam – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24833 OF 2015
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.R. Rajan
For the Respondents: M.R. Arun Kumar, Joshy Thannikkamattam
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.R. Rajan
For the Respondents: M.R. Arun Kumar, Joshy Thannikkamattam
The right to a peaceful, pollution-free environment is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. Religious activities must comply with noise pollution norms, and authorities must strictly enforce the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, particularly in silent zones.
Headnote:(A) Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Rules 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and Schedule - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) - Noise pollution from temple - Right to peaceful living - Silent zone - Use of loudspeakers and other noise-generating instruments in residential areas - Responsibility of authorities to enforce ambient air quality standards - An undertaking given by temple authorities to limit noise must be strictly followed. (Paras 8, 9, 12)
(B) Right to Life - Article 21 - Right to live with human dignity includes the right to a pollution-free environment and peaceful living in one's residence and place of work. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a pediatrician running a clinic at his residence, alleged that the adjacent Kuzhikantom Sree Krishna Swamy Temple caused excessive noise pollution through loudspeakers, drums, bells, and firecrackers, exceeding limits for a designated silent zone. Despite a previous court-directed agreement where the temple promised to remove a large bell and limit loudspeaker use, the temple allegedly violated these terms. The petitioner claimed that the police and pollution control authorities failed to take action against these violations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the noise polluting activities of the temple disrupted the peaceful living and professional practice of the petitioner. It emphasized that the authorities have a statutory duty under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, to prevent annoyance, disturbance, and discomfort to persons occupying property in the vicinity.
Issues: Whether the inaction of the responding authorities in failing to regulate noise pollution caused by the temple violated the statutory provisions of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, and the petitioner's fundamental right to a peaceful environment under Article 21.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity in a pollution-free environment. It ruled that religious activities cannot be a license to violate pollution control norms and that the authorities must exercise their powers under Rule 8 of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, to ensure strict compliance with ambient air quality standards.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- tort
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims violation of noise rules and inaction by authorities; temple alleged to have breached earlier undertaking to cease noise pollution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 11 )
3. Noise pollution rules, especially for silent zones and hospitals, impose strict limits; authorities must enforce them to protect right to life. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Right to peaceful life under Article 21 includes freedom from excessive noise; authorities must enforce Noise Pollution Rules 2000. (Para 8 , 12 )
5. Writ disposed directing compliance with earlier undertaking, periodic inspections, and strict enforcement of Noise Pollution Rules 2000. (Para 12 )
6. What is the scope of the right to life under Article 21 regarding noise pollution?
Right to life includes right to a peaceful existence free from excessive noise; authorities must enforce noise pollution rules to protect this right. (Para 12 )
7. What are the ambient air quality standards for noise in a silence zone?
For silence zones, the limits are 50 dB(A) Leq during daytime and 40 dB(A) Leq during nighttime as per the Schedule to the Rules. (Para 9 )
8. What powers does the authority have under Rule 8 of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000?
The authority can issue written orders to prevent, prohibit, control, or regulate noise causing annoyance, disturbance, or discomfort to nearby dwellers. (Para 8 )
9. Can loudspeakers be used without permission under the Noise Pollution Rules?
No, loudspeakers or public address systems require written permission from the authority, and even during festivals specific permission is needed. (Para 8 )
10. Is a clinic considered a hospital under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000?
Yes, under Rule 2(f) of the Rules, a clinic falls within the definition of hospital, attracting the higher protection standards for silence zones. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 1, 3 and 5 to avert noise pollution caused by the 4th respondent.
2. The averments in writ petition in brief are as follows: The petitioner is a pediatrician having his consultation clinic attached to his home. The 4th respondent is a temple by the name Kuzhikantom Sree Krishna Swamy Temple which is situated adjacent to the petitioner’s property and is situated 3 meters away. The area is thickly populated and is one coming under silent zone as per the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 2000’)The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent temple authority is operating loudspeakers at high volumes from early morning at 5:00 a.m. and continue till 8.30 p.m. At around 6:30 p.m. they start beating drums and the same goes till 8.00 p.m along with the ringing of bells and the blowing of conches. At times firecrackers are also used. All these have made it practically impossible for the petitioners and his family members to lead a peaceful life at their residence. In fact, the noise generated from the 4th respondent temple premises exceeds the limits prescribed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
3. It is further contended that even though the petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 several times pointing out the illegality committed by the 4th respondent temple, no action was taken in the matter. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court filing W.P.(C) No. 1569 of 2014 which was disposed of as per Exhibit P1 judgment dated 17.01.2014 whereby direction was issued to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 representation dated 01.01.2014 filed by the petitioner. In spite of specific direction issued by this court, no action was taken by the 1st respondent and in the said circumstance petitioner moved this court again by filing C.C.C No. 1348 of 2014 and while the said Contempt of Court Case was pending consideration, the 1st respondent passed Exhibit P3 order dated 10.01.2015. The said order reads as follows:
“As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Dated 17.01.14 in WP(C) No.1569 of 2014, a meeting of the petitioner, Dr.Chandramohan and the temple authorities of Kuzhikandam Sree Krishna Swamy Temple (respondent) was convened on 22.04.2014 in the presence of Environment Engineer and concerned Police Officials. In the said meeting both the parties were heard and the temple authorities agreed to stop all the activities which may cause noise pollution.
Now on the receipt of the petition alleging contempt of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala filed by Dr.Chandramohan, another meeting of the petitioner and the Temple authorities (respondent) was convened on 10.01.2015. In the meeting, the temple authorities agreed to remove the large bell causing annoyances to the petitioner and that only a small speaker will be used in the temple premises and it will be installed to the opposite direction of the petitioner's house.
In the above mentioned circumstances the meeting is concluded with strict instructions to the Temple authority (respondent) that they shall not deviate from the assurance given by them. SHO Kilikolloor and Assistant Commissioner of Police Special Branch will supervise the proper implementation of the same.”
A reading of Exhibit P3 would reveal that in the meetings convened by the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent temple authorities have agreed to stop all activities which may cause noise pollution and that strict instructions have been given to the 4th respondent not to deviate from the assurance given and the 5th respondent was directed to supervise the proper implementation of the same.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent again installed multiple loudspeaker boxes and started other noise polluting activities like the beating of drums, ringing of bells, et
