FORUM PREVENTION OF ENVN. & SOUND POLLUTION V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2005 SC 3136
FORUM PREVENTION OF ENVN. & SOUND POLLUTION V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2005 SC 3136
FACTS
The present petition is filed by the Petitioner, moving the Court pro bono publico. The petition was filed because a 13 year old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of January 3, 1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeakers 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 the loudspeakers being used in religious performances or singing bhajans and the like in busy commercial localities on the days of weekly offs. The Petition complains that modern residents of the locality organize terrace parties for socializing 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. 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.
The Government of India framed and published Noise Pollution Control and Regulation Rules, 1999. 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 pm and 12 pm mid-night) on or during the cultural or religious occasions for a limited period not exceeding 15 days. This amendment was put in issue by the appellant (petitioner) submitting that the provision is not accompanied by any guidelines and is capable of being misused 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.
ISSUES
- Whether noise pollution runs in conflict with the fundamental rights of the people? And what relief can be allowed by way of directions issued in public interest?
CASES REFERRED
Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [AIR (2001) Del. 455 (DB)] and P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam [AIR (1993) Ker 1]:
Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21.
Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal v. The State, [AIR 1958 Punj 11]: The accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 290 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and was fined Rs. 50 for causing noise and emitting smoke and vibrations by operating of heavy machinery in the residential area. The orders of the trial court was upheld by the District Magistrate in appeal. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana also upheld the decision of the courts below and dismissed the revision petition.
Bhuban Ram v. Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas [AIR 1919 Calcutta 539]: It was held that working of a paddy husking machine at night causes nuisance by noise and the occupier was held liable to be punished under Section 290 IPC.
Rabin Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, [AIR 1985 Cal. 222]: The use of air horns was prohibited by the court to prevent noise pollution. The Court observed: It is found that the atmosphere and the environment is very much polluted from indiscriminating noise emitted from different quarters and on research it was found that persons who are staying near the Airport, are becoming victim of various ailments. Such persons even become victim of mental disease. On such research it was also found that workers in various factories even become deaf and hard of hearing. It was further found on such research that as a result of this excessive noise pollution, people suffer from loss of appetite, depression, mental restlessness and insomnia. People also suffer from excessive blood pressure and heart trouble. It is not necessary to go into the question about direct effect of such noise pollution because of indiscriminate and illegal use of such electric and air horn as it is an admitted position that the same is injurious to health and amongst different causes of environmental pollution, sound pollution is one which is of grave concern.”
People United for better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1993 Cal. 215]: The Calcutta High Court observed: In a developing country there shall have to be developments, but that development shall have to be in closest possible harmony with the environment, as otherwise there would be development but no environment, which would result in total devastation, though, however, may not be felt in present but at some future point of time, but then it would be too late in the day, however, to control and improve the environment. In fact, there should be a proper balance between the protection of environment and the development process. The society shall have to prosper, but not at the cost of the environment and in similar vein, the environment shall have to be protected but not at the cost of the development of the society and as such a balance has to be found out and administrative actions ought to proceed accordingly.
Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner of police, Calcutta [AIR 1998 Cal. 121]: It has been held that Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution or which takes away that community’s safety, health and peace. A citizen or people cannot be made a captive listener to hear the tremendous sounds caused by bursting out from noisy fireworks. It may give pleasure to one or two persons who burst it but others have to be a captive listener whose fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(10(a) and other provisions of the Constitution are taken away, suspended and made meaningless. Under Art. 19(1)(a), read with Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the citizens have a right of decent environment and they have a right to live peacefully, right to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which are all necessary under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn. [(2000) 7 SCC 282]: It was held that the Court may issue directions in respect of controlling noise pollution even if such noise was a direct result of and was connected with religious activities. It was further held:- Undisputedly, 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. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities 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. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly, the old and the infirm are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible (sic sensitive) to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured. Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules for noise-pollution level are framed which prescribe permissible limits of noise in residential, commercial, industrial areas or silence zone. The question is whether the appellant can be permitted to violate the said provisions and add to the noise pollution. In our view, to claim such a right in itself would be unjustifiable. In these days, the problem of noise pollution has become more serious with the increasing trend towards industrialisation, urbanization and modernisation and is having many evil effects including danger to health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication