CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA V. KKR MAJESTIC WELFARE COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION, AIR 2000 SC 2773
CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA V. KKR MAJESTIC WELFARE COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION, AIR 2000 SC 2773
FACTS AND CASE HISTORY
This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the Church. The appellant is the Church of God (Full Gospel) located in Chennai. It has a prayer hall for the Pentecostal Christians and is provided with musical instruments such as drum set, triple gango, guitar etc. The KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association (Welfare Association for short) made a complaint to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) stating therein that prayers in the Church were recited by using loudspeakers, drums and other sound producing instruments which caused noise pollution thereby disturbing and causing nuisance to the normal day life of the residents of the said colony. Complaints were also made to the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Board addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police to take action on the complaint. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Board again addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police enclosing therewith the analysis report of the ambient noise level survey conducted in the vicinity of the appellants church hall which disclosed that noise pollution was due to plying of vehicles on the Madhavaram High Road. Thereafter the Welfare Association filed a Criminal case before the High Court of Madras for a direction to Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police to take action on the basis of the letter issued byJoint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Board. In the High Court, it was contended by learned counsel for the Church that the petition was filed with an oblique motive in order to prevent a religious minority institution from pursuing its religious activities and the Court cannot issue any direction to prevent the Church from practicing its religious beliefs. It was also submitted that the noise pollution was due to plying of vehicles and not due to use of loudspeakers etc.
Reference of the Learned Judge of the High Court: The learned Judge referred to the decision of the High Court in Appa Rao, M.S. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Another (1995-1 L.W. (Vol.115) 319) where certain guidelines have been laid down for controlling the noise pollution. In the referred case, the Court had issued directions to the Government for controlling the noise pollution and for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers.
Impugned Order of the High Court, which is challenged in the Supreme Court: The learned Judge of the High Court pointed out that there was nothing of malice and malicious wish to cause any hindrance to the free practice of religious faith of the Church and if the noise created by the Church exceeds the permissible decibels then it has to be abated. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the Church.
ISSUES
- Whether a particular community or sect of that community can claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion?
- Whether the appellant can be permitted to violate the said provisions and add to the noise pollution?
JUDGEMENT
The Court held as follows:
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 day-time 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, old and 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 to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.