2005 Supreme(SC) 896

Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., ASHOK BHAN, J.
Writ Petition (C) No. 72 of 1998
NOISE POLLUTION (V), IN RE
With
Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005
FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SOUND POLLUTION -Appellant;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents.
Writ Petition (C) No. 72 of 1998 with Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005
decided on July 18,2005
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Jitendra Sharma (Amicus Curiae), N.N. Goswami, Rajiv Dutta, G.L. Sanghi, P.N. Mishra and R. Mohan, Senior Advocates [Sandeep Narain (Amicus Curiae), Anil Kr. Mittal, Ms Anjali Jha, M.K.S. Menon, M.K. Michael, Ms Indra Sawhney, Ms Meenakshi Arora, P. Parameswaran, Ms Anil Katiyar, Dr. A. Francis Julian, Ms A. Subhashini, D.S. Mahra, Ashok Bhan, Ms Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Vijay Panjwani, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Sanjay V.S. Choudhury, Ms Niraj Kumar, Y.K. Sidharthan, P.Y. Yogeswaran, S. Ravi Shankar, Ms Yamunah Nachiar and M.A. Chinnaswamy, Advocates) for the appearing parties.

The right to live in an environment free from noise pollution is a fundamental right under Article 21. Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) does not permit the use of mechanical devices to create noise that violates others' right to a peaceful and dignified life.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21, and 25 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 268, 290, and 291 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 133 - Explosives Act, 1884 - Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not of mere survival but guarantees a right to life with human dignity, which includes the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution (Paras 10, 11, and 117). Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and cannot be invoked to justify "aural aggression" or the use of artificial devices to force unwilling persons to hear noise at obnoxious levels, as this violates the fundamental right to a peaceful and pollution-free life (Para 11).

(B) Noise Pollution - Health Hazards and Definition - Noise is defined as unwanted sound and classified as an air pollutant. It constitutes a real and present danger to health, causing auditory effects like permanent hearing loss and non-auditory effects including physical and psychological stress, sleep disturbance, and cardiovascular issues (Paras 13-34).

(C) Regulation of Firecrackers - Method of enforcement - While decibel limits are the standard for noise, measuring sound levels at the point of bursting is impractical due to lack of infrastructure and technical expertise. Regulating the size, weight, and chemical composition of firecrackers is a more dependable and logical method to ensure compliance with noise standards (Paras 140-142).

(D) Religious Rights - Article 25 - No religion prescribes that prayers be performed by disturbing the peace of others or through voice amplifiers. The right to celebrate festivals cannot supersede the fundamental right of citizens to live in peace and comfort, and restrictions on night-time bursting of firecrackers do not violate religious rights (Paras 156-157).

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed pro bono publico highlighting the severe consequences of noise pollution, specifically citing an instance where a victim's cries for help went unheard due to loud music from loudspeakers. The petitioner sought the rigorous enforcement of laws restricting loudspeakers and high-volume audio systems. Separately, an appeal challenged an amendment to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which empowered state governments to permit loudspeakers during night hours for limited cultural or religious occasions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that noise pollution is a significant health hazard that interferes with the right to life. It determined that the most workable method for regulating firecrackers in the current administrative environment is by specifying chemical formulae and maximum permissible weights rather than decibel testing. It also held that the total ban on sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is necessary for public health.

Issues: Whether the right to a noise-free environment is a fundamental right under Article 21; whether the use of loudspeakers is protected by the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a); whether the regulatory mechanism for firecrackers should shift from decibel measurement to chemical composition; and whether night-time restrictions on firecrackers violate religious rights under Article 25.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to life encompasses the right to a decent environment and peaceful sleep. Mechanical devices like loudspeakers do not possess fundamental rights, and their use cannot override the human right to be let alone. Given the lack of technical infrastructure for real-time sound measurement, the regulation of fireworks via chemical composition is the most practical means of enforcement to protect the public from noise pollution.

Result: Writ petition, civil appeal, and all pending interlocutory applications disposed of with specific directions regarding firecracker composition, loudspeaker noise limits, vehicular noise restrictions, and public awareness campaigns.