Judgment

R.C. LAHOTI, C.J.I.- These two matters before us raise certain issues of far-reaching implications in day-to-day life of the people in India relatable to noise pollution vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in its wide sweep by the constitutional courts of the country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but several intervenors and interlocutory applications enhanced the scope of hearing and the cases were heard in a very wide perspective centring around Article 21 of the Constitution. Several associated and incidental issues have also been gone into.

Facts in WP(C) No. 72 of 1998

2. CWP No. 72 of 1998 is filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession moving the Court pro bono publico. The immediate provocation for filing the petition was that a 13-year-old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of 3-1-1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker in the neighbourhood. The victim girl, later in the evening, set herself ablaze and died of 100 burn injuries. The petition complains of noise created by the use of loudspeakers being used in religious performances or singing bhajans and the like in busy commercial localities on the days of weekly offs. Best quality hi-fi audio systems are used. Open space, meant for use by the a schools in the locality, is let out for use in marriage functions and parties wherein merrymaking goes on with hi-fi amplifiers and loudspeakers without any regard to timings. Modem residents of the locality organise terrace parties for socialising and use high capacity stereo systems in abundance. These are a few instances of noise pollution generated much to the chagrin of students taking examinations who find it utterly difficult to concentrate on studies before and during examinations. The noise-polluters have no regard for the inconvenience and discomfort of the people in the vicinity. Noise pollution has had its victims in the past and continues to have victims today as well. The petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court so that there may not be victims of noise pollution in future. The principal prayer is that the existing laws for restricting the use of loudspeakers and other high volume noise-producing audio-video systems, be directed to be

rigorously enforced.

Facts in CA No. 3735 of 2005 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21851 of 2003]

3.Leave granted.

4. The Government of India framed and published the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. On 11-10-2002 the Government of India brought in an amendment in the Rules. The amendment empowered the State Government to permit use of loudspeaker or public address system during night hours (between 10 p.m. and 12 p.m. midnight) on or during the cultural or religious occasions for a limited period not exceeding 15 days. Vires of this amendment were put in issue by the appellant submitting that the provision is not accompanied by any guidelines and is capable of beingmisused to such an extent that the whole purpose behind enacting the Rules itself may be defeated. The High Court of Kerala found the petition devoid of any merit and directed the petition to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed by special leave.

5. The special leave petition and, in particular, the writ petition raise issues of wide ranging dimensions relating to noise pollution and theimplications thereof. Taking cognizance of the matters as public interest litigation, the Court vide its order dated 6-4-1998, directed the cause title of the petition filed by Shri Anil Kumar Mittal to be amended as "In re. Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for restricting voice of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems". The Court also appointed Shri Jitendra Sharma, Senior Advocate and Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate to appear as amicus curiae. Both the learned counsel were present in the Court