Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
The legal framework supports filing a suit against the use of loudspeakers for religious recitals like Azan if it causes noise pollution impacting the public, and such suits are recognized in case law under Section 91 CPC ["MR. BALAKRISHNA SUVARNA v/s MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION LALBAUG - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["MR. BALAKRISHNA SUVARNA v/s MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION LALBAUG - Karnataka"]- ["SURINDER SINGH vs PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["SURINDER SINGH vs PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Mahesh Chand Sharma VS Hukam Chand Sharma - Rajasthan"]- ["SURINDER SINGH vs PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. - Punjab and Haryana"]
Noise pollution from loudspeakers used for religious recitals, such as the Azaan, has become a growing concern in densely populated areas. Residents often face disturbances affecting sleep, health, and daily life. But can you take legal action? Specifically, provide a case law saying suit can be filed under section 91 of cpc against the use of loudspeaker for recital of aazan which is creating noise pollution. This question addresses a common grievance where excessive noise is deemed a public nuisance.
In this post, we explore the legal framework under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, key judicial precedents, and practical steps for filing such suits. While courts have recognized noise from religious loudspeakers as actionable, success typically hinges on proving special damages or obtaining court leave. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Section 91 CPC empowers suits against public nuisances or wrongful acts affecting the public. Originally suited for actions by public authorities, amendments and judicial interpretations have expanded it to private individuals under certain conditions. Noise pollution, including from religious loudspeakers, falls under this as it impacts health, safety, and comfort. PAILAPPAN VS SEBASTIAN - 1988 0 Supreme(Ker) 83
The Supreme Court has reinforced this in environmental cases, treating noise as akin to pollution actionable privately if specific harm is proven. Mohinder Singh VS Surmukh Singh - Current Civil Cases (2012)
To succeed, plaintiffs must meet procedural hurdles:
Suits can proceed outside Section 91 if private rights (e.g., easement of quiet enjoyment) are violated. SURINDER SINGH vs PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. Even the application in terms of applicability of Section 91 CPC is not mandatory in terms of Section 91 (2) CPC... which may exist independently of the provision made in Section 91 CPC.
Courts have directly addressed loudspeaker noise from religious practices:
Noise as Public Nuisance: Held that loudspeakers causing disturbance or health hazards qualify. Private suits viable with specific damage proof, like sleep interference. Mohinder Singh VS Surmukh Singh - Current Civil Cases (2012)
Resident Suit Example: Plaintiff near noise source showed proximity and hardship, establishing special damage for injunction. Noise pollution deemed wrongful act under Section 91(1). Satnam Singh VS Jindo - Current Civil Cases (2010)
Supreme Court Rulings:
Other cases affirm:- Noise, dust, smoke suits don't always need Section 91 sanction if private rights involved. Parklands Apartments Association, Rep. By its Secretary VS Headmaster, Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2855 caused by noise, dust and smoke, it is seen that section 91(1) CPC would be inapplicable... prior permission is not required... affecting any right of the suit which may exist independently.- Regulation essential; police can intervene on excessive volume. Indian National Congress, (Sikkim Pradesh) VS State of Sikkim represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok - 2017 Supreme(Sikk) 5 regulation of volume of loudspeaker is necessary to contain noise pollution as the public at large are entitled to protection from excessive noise pollution.
Environmental tribunals also monitor noise, directing PCBs for compliance, but civil suits remain key for injunctions. Dulli Chand Meena vs The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Mines Department & The Mines Engineer Mines and Geology Department & The District Collector Alwar & The Regional Officer Rajasthan Pollution Control Board & The Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate Rajgarh & The Deputy Conservator of Forest Forest Department & M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2012
Courts uphold religious freedoms but prioritize Article 21 (right to life, including pollution-free environment). Loudspeakers for Azaan must comply with time/volume limits; excesses actionable. No fundamental right to disturb neighbors. Ajay Marathe VS Union of India - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1394 The refusal to grant permission to use a loudspeaker for preventing noise pollution does not offend fundamental rights.
In conclusion, while religious practices are protected, unchecked noise isn't. Affected parties may seek civil remedies, but outcomes depend on facts. For personalized guidance, engage a legal expert. Stay informed, stay peaceful.
References: PAILAPPAN VS SEBASTIAN - 1988 0 Supreme(Ker) 83Adani Wilmar Ltd VS A. S. Hansraj, Member of Lions Club - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 1661Mohinder Singh VS Surmukh Singh - Current Civil Cases (2012)I. Square Infrastructure And Developers (wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As Mr I Skyers Infrastructure And Developers) District Durg Chhattisgarh VS State Of Chhattisgarh - 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 447Satnam Singh VS Jindo - Current Civil Cases (2010)Parklands Apartments Association, Rep. By its Secretary VS Headmaster, Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2855SURINDER SINGH vs PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.Ashtalakshmi Nagar VS Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 851Indian National Congress, (Sikkim Pradesh) VS State of Sikkim represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok - 2017 Supreme(Sikk) 5
#Section91CPC #NoisePollutionLaw #PublicNuisance
If that would be the case, the remedy available to the impleading applicants is to file a writ under Section 91 of CPC. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. ... b) Subsequently, one Mr.Sathish K, son of the Late Mrs.Sarojini, lodged a complaint with the Mangaluru City Corporation, alleging that the plaintiff has been creating noise pollution, sound pollution, and violating various laws. ... He further submitted that the grievance in ....
Even the application in terms of applicability of Section 91 CPC is not mandatory in nature in terms of Section 91 (2) CPC. ... Plea of Section 91 CPC has been raised for the first time in appeal. ... which may exist independently of the provision made in Section 91 CPC. ... provides that nothing can affect any right of suit of any person which may exi....
under section 91 CPC. ... caused by noise, dust and smoke, it is seen that section 91(1) CPC would be inapplicable to the suit instituted by the plaintiffs. ... sanction under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure to institute suit was not obtained by the plaintiffs, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. ... against the defendant and in such circumstances, ....
under section 91 CPC. ... caused by noise, dust and smoke, it is seen that section 91(1) CPC would be inapplicable to the suit instituted by the plaintiffs. ... against the defendant and in such circumstances, contended that prior permission is not required to be obtained by the plaintiffs affecting any right of the suit which may exist independently of the provisions contained in Section 91(1) #H....
Since this was not done so this suit is not maintainable as being violative of the mandates of law contained in section 91 CPC and this is a serious question to be gone into. ... 6. ... The following substantial questions of law have been formulated in the memo of appeal: ... i. Whether the suit is hit by section 91 of Civil Procedure Code and therefore liable to be set aside on that score? ... 2. ... As no speci....
So, without complying the provision of Section 91 CPC and Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, the present suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the civil suit as a public interest litigation. ... Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that appellants had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the tria....
So, without complying the provision of Section 91 CPC and order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the present suit was not maintainable. ... the trial court to decide the suit, as per law, on its merit. ... Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that appellants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court. ... He also stated that other devotees had ....
In view of the air pollution and noise pollution, we direct the State PCB to periodically monitor the noise pollution and air pollution while the unit is functioning and operational and in-case of any violation and the air pollution or noise pollution beyond the permissible limit necessary remedial measures ... Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General submits that private respondents have already been evicte....
In view of the air pollution and noise pollution, we direct the State PCB to periodically monitor the noise pollution and air pollution while the unit is functioning and operational and in-case of any violation and the air pollution or noise pollution beyond the permissible limit necessary remedial measures ... Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General submits that private respondents have already been evicte....
91 of CPC and Order 1 CPC. ... A reading of Section 91 of CPC would indicate that where a public nuisance or any other wrongful act affecting the public is the provision of Section 91 of CPC, held as follows:- p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case In Re: Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high-volume producing sound systems. The presence of a sub-station which is so close to the house of the petitioner is a huge health hazard due to the generation of magnetic radiation and other waves which are known to have a huge impact on the health of persons, especially when the said sub-station is just 10-12 feet away from their residential units, which would result in massive, continuous and long term exposure to the waves and frequencies which ar....
The Honourable Supreme Court in In Re: Noise Pollution reported in AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3136, while holding that there is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution, has elaborately dealt with the issue with regard to the implementation of the laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems. In paragraphs 9 and 10, the Honourable Supreme Court elucidated the importance of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and observed as follows:
If the interpretation put by the Central Government as well as state Government is taken into consideration, it is now possible to grant a permission to use a loudspeaker or sound amplifier even at a distance of 5 to 10 meters from hospitals, Courts, or schools/colleges. Moreover, the restrictions imposed by Rule 6 of the Principal Rules do not apply within the precincts of Courts, Hospitals, schools etc as held in Dr. Bedekar's case. The refusal to grant permission to use a loudspeaker for preventing noise pollution does not offend fundamental rights of any individual. Thu....
In fine, it is well settled principles of rule of law that regulation of volume of loudspeaker is necessary to contain noise pollution as the public at large are entitled to protection from excessive noise pollution. (i) the police before taking any action to regulate noise pollution be directed to issue necessary instructions; In the aforestated analyses, I am constrained to observe that:
In Re: Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeaker and High Volume Producing Sound Systems AIR 2005 SC 3136 approving the judgment aforesaid of the High Court of Kerala and holding that freedom of speech and expression are not absolute – nobody can claim fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of speech with the help of loudspeakers; while one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Harry J. Lehman Vs. City of Shaker Heights 41 L Ed 2d 770 where the US Supreme Court held that the Ohio c....
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
