Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association

Residents of a colony in Chennai complained that a Pentecostal church used loudspeakers, drums and other instruments in its prayer hall. The Supreme Court asked whether a religious group can claim a right to add to noise pollution (harm to people from unwanted sound) in the name of religion.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Supreme Court of India (sci.gov.in)

Parties

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India — appellant. It is a church at K.K.R. Nagar, Madhavaram High Road, Chennai, with a prayer hall for Pentecostal Christians. It has musical instruments such as a drum set, triple gango and guitar.

K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association — respondent No. 1. It made the complaint and filed the petition in the High Court. The respondents said it has members of all religions, as the High Court found.

Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board — the authority to which the residents complained. Its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer is respondent No. 4.

Superintendent of Police, Chengai MGR District (East), Chennai — respondent No. 5. Inspector of Police — respondent No. 6. Both received complaints from the residents.

Procedural History

• 15.5.1996: the Welfare Association complained to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board.
• Date not stated: complaints were also made to the Superintendent and the Inspector of Police.
• 23.5.1996: the Board's Joint Chief Environmental Engineer wrote to the Superintendent of Police to take action.
• 12.6.1996: he wrote again, enclosing the ambient noise level survey report.
• Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998: the Welfare Association petitioned the Madras High Court for a direction to respondents 5 and 6 to act on the Board's letter.
• 19.4.1999: the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court disposed of the petition with directions.
• The Church appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave (permission the Supreme Court gives to hear an appeal). Leave was granted. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 30 August 2000 (Shah, J.).

Facts

1. The Church has a prayer hall for Pentecostal Christians at K.K.R. Nagar, Madhavaram High Road, Chennai. It has instruments such as a drum set, triple gango and guitar.
2. On 15.5.1996 the Welfare Association complained to the Board. It said prayers were recited with loudspeakers, drums and other sound-producing instruments. This caused noise pollution and nuisance (unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of something) to the normal daily life of the colony's residents.
3. Complaints were also made to the Superintendent and the Inspector of Police.
4. On 23.5.1996 the Board's Joint Chief Environmental Engineer asked the Superintendent of Police to act.
5. On 12.6.1996 he sent the analysis report of the ambient noise level survey done near the church hall. It showed that the noise pollution was due to vehicles plying on Madhavaram High Road.
6. The Welfare Association made representations to various officials. It then filed Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998 in the Madras High Court.
7. Before stating the facts, the Court set out its general view. Noise pollution has grown worse with industrialisation, urbanisation and modernisation.
8. The Court listed these effects: interrupted sleep, poor communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness and high blood pressure. It also listed depression, irritability, fatigue, stomach problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance. It also affects animals.
9. The harm depends on how long and how intense the noise is, and it can sometimes cause a law and order problem.
10. The Court also said that in an organised society, rights are tied to duties towards others, including neighbours (Shah, J.'s opinion).

Issues Raised

The Court framed the three questions below. The appellant's Article 25 and 26 point is in the appellant's arguments under Arguments.

1. In a country with many religions, communities and sects, can a community or sect claim a right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion?
2. Should beating of drums, or reciting prayers through microphones and loudspeakers, be allowed where it disturbs the peace of the neighbourhood?
3. Can the Church be allowed to break the noise limits framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and add to noise pollution?

Arguments Contended

Before the High Court — the Church:

• The petition was filed with an oblique motive, to stop a religious minority institution from pursuing its religious activities.
• The Court could not direct that the Church be stopped from practising its religious beliefs.
• The noise came from plying vehicles and not from loudspeakers.

Before the Supreme Court — for the Church (Mr. G. Krishnan, senior counsel):

• The High Court overlooked that the Board's two survey reports blamed vehicular traffic, not the Church, for the noise. The noise-control directions should not have been extended to the Church.
• The right to profess and practise Christianity is protected by Articles 25 and 26. It cannot be removed by directing the authorities to keep a check on the Church.
• The Appa Rao judgment relied on by the High Court did not empower the authorities to interfere with the religious practices of any community.

For the respondents:

• The Church deliberately tried to give a religious colour to the matter. The Welfare Association has members of all religions, as the High Court found.
• Even if the Church's noise is within the prescribed limit, the High Court's order does not harm its right of religious practice. The order only aims at reducing noise pollution in the area.
• The High Court can pass orders to protect a citizen's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
• They relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Om Birangana Religious Society v. The State, which dealt with a similar matter (see Authorities).

Court's Reasoning

Opinion of the Court (Shah, J., for the Bench; the judgment has no numbered paragraphs)

• 1. Held: "Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others". In plain words, no religion requires prayer through loudspeakers or drums. Noted: the Court began with the questions in Issues 1 and 2. In a civilised society, religious activities that disturb old or infirm people, students, sleeping children or people doing other work cannot be allowed.
• 2. Noted: young babies are entitled to sleep in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for an examination may study without unnecessary disturbance from neighbours. Old and infirm people may enjoy reasonable quiet in their leisure hours. The aged, the sick, people with psychic disturbances and children up to 6 years are very sensitive to noise. Their rights must be honoured.
• 3. Noted: under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules fix permissible noise limits for residential, commercial and industrial areas and silence zones (areas of not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts). Held: to claim a right to break these limits and add to noise pollution is unjustifiable.
• 4. Noted: the Court repeated the health effects of noise listed in the Facts. In an organised society, rights are related to duties towards others, including neighbours.
• 5. Noted: the Single Judge relied on the Madras High Court Division Bench in Appa Rao, M.S. v. Government of Tamil Nadu. That Bench had considered Sections 41 and 71(a) of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and Section 10 of the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889. It had directed the Government to control noise and the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers. It found the complainants' grievances fully justified.
• 6. Noted: the Appa Rao Bench said the authorities were turning, or being made by higher powers to turn, a Nelson's eye (a blind eye) to breaches of the rules. The Bench also looked at an article in Science Today (August 1982) and an ICMR Bulletin (July 1979) on noise pollution in South India. These pointed to nervous disorders, emotional tension leading to high blood pressure, heart disease, higher cholesterol leading to heart attacks and strokes, and even damage to the foetus.
• 7. Noted: the Single Judge directed respondents 5 and 6 to follow the Appa Rao guidelines. They were to bring the noise down to the permitted level. They were to act against noisy vehicles and make the Church keep its speakers at a lower level. The Judge held that the Board's survey showed the Church was not the sole contributor of noise, since vehicles also caused it. He found no malice (an improper or spiteful motive) and no wish to hinder the Church's free practice of its faith. If the Church's noise exceeded the permitted decibels, it had to be abated.
• 8. Noted: the Calcutta High Court in Om Birangana Religious Society asked five questions. Is the public a captive audience (people who cannot avoid hearing a sound played in public) when loudspeakers are permitted? Is it only a law and order matter? Does it not generate sound pollution? Does it not affect other known rights? Is even an ill person made to listen? That High Court said it cannot be said that religious teachers desired the use of microphones as a means of religion. It held that Article 25(1) is not absolute and is subject to Article 19(1)(a). So a citizen cannot be forced to hear what he does not want. It then laid down guidelines for the Pollution Control Board of West Bengal on permission for loudspeakers and noise levels.
• 9. Held: the Church's contentions are rejected. Why: the Single Judge only told the authorities to follow the Appa Rao guidelines, made under the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889. The direction is also in line with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The Central Government made those Rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
• 10. Noted: the Court set out rules 3 to 8 of the 2000 Rules (see the table and summary below). Held: the rules are unambiguous, clear and speak for themselves. The High Court's directions cannot be called illegal or erroneous in any way.
• 11. Held: the Court need not deal in detail with Articles 25 and 26, which are subject to public order, morality and health. Why: no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers must be performed through voice amplifiers or drum beating. In any case, any such practice must not adversely affect the rights of others, including the right not to be disturbed in their activities.
• 12. Noted: in Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, the Constitution Bench said no rights in an organised society can be absolute. Enjoying one's rights must be consistent with others enjoying theirs. Where social forces cannot reach voluntary harmony, the State must step in to correct the imbalance between competing interests. A fundamental right cannot exist in a water-tight compartment. One person's Fundamental Right may have to co-exist with another's. It may also have to co-exist with the State's reasonable and valid exercise of power. That power is read in light of the Directive Principles and the interests of social welfare as a whole.
• 13. Held: in some areas of a city, noise may already exceed the prescribed limits because of urbanisation or industrialisation. That is no ground to let others add to it by drums, voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or other instruments. Rules setting reasonable restrictions must be enforced. These include the rules for loudspeakers and voice amplifiers under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
• 14. Noted: although the Rules are unambiguous, citizens and the implementing authorities lack awareness of them and of the authorities' duty to implement them. Noise-polluting activities are rampant. The Rules, or the rules under various State Police Acts, are not enforced for one reason or another. Held: the High Court therefore rightly directed their implementation.

The 2000 Rules as set out in the judgment

Rule 3 — ambient noise standards (limits in dB(A) Leq):

Notes to the Schedule: day time is 6.00 am to 10.00 pm; night time is 10.00 pm to 6.00 am. A silence zone is an area of not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. Silence zones are those declared as such by the competent authority. The competent authority may declare mixed-category areas to be one of the four categories.

• Rule 4: noise in any area must not exceed the standards. The authority is responsible for enforcement and compliance.
• Rule 5: a loudspeaker or public address system may not be used without written permission from the authority. It may not be used at night (10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, such as auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.
• Rule 6: in a silence zone or area, the following is an offence punishable under the Act:
  • playing music or using sound amplifiers;
  • beating a drum or tom-tom, blowing a horn (musical or pressure) or a trumpet, or sounding any instrument; or
  • giving any mimetic, musical or other performance that attracts crowds.
• Rule 7: a person may complain to the authority if noise exceeds the standards by 10 dB(A) or more. The authority must act on the complaint and act against the violator under the rules and other law.
• Rule 8: the authority may issue written directions to prevent, prohibit, control or regulate vocal or instrumental music. This covers sounds from instruments, including loudspeakers and public address systems, and noisy trades or processes in any premises.
  • It may do so if satisfied, from a police station officer's report or other information, that this is needed. The aim is to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury, or the risk of these, to the public or nearby occupiers.
  • The authority may rescind, modify or alter such an order on its own motion or on an application by an aggrieved person.
  • Before disposing of the application, it must give the applicant a hearing. It must record reasons if it rejects the application in whole or in part.

Authorities

• Appa Rao, M.S. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1995-1 L.W. (Vol.115) 319) (Madras High Court, Division Bench) — followed by the Single Judge for guidelines on noise and loudspeakers; the Supreme Court held the direction to follow them was valid. Discussed in the Court's account of the High Court's decision.
• Om Birangana Religious Society v. The State and others, CWN 1995-96 (Vol.100) 617 (Calcutta High Court) — relied on by the respondents; its questions and holdings on Article 25(1) and Article 19(1)(a) are set out. The Court did not separately approve or disapprove it.
• Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Others v. The State of Gujarat and Others, (1975) 1 SCC 11 (Constitution Bench) — referred to for the point that no right is absolute and that rights under Articles 25 and 26 must co-exist with others' rights.

Also cited in footnotes: none. The judgment has no footnotes.

Statutes and provisions mentioned

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — the Central Government made the noise rules under it. It also allows rules on noise levels in residential, commercial and industrial areas and silence zones.
• Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, rule 5 — read with the 1986 Act as the source of the 2000 Rules.
• Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, rules 3 to 8 — set out above.
• Madras City Police Act, 1888, Sections 41 and 71(a) — considered in Appa Rao.
• Madras Town(s) Nuisance Act, 1889, Section 10 — considered in Appa Rao; the rules for loudspeakers and voice amplifiers were framed under it. (The judgment prints the year once as "1989" and otherwise as 1889.)
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution — freedom of speech and expression; the respondents said the High Court can protect it, and in Om Birangana it limited Article 25.
• Article 25 (25(1)) — the provision on religious rights. The Court said the rights under it are subject to public order, morality and health. The Calcutta decision mentions the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
• Article 26 — the provision on religious rights. The Court said the rights under it are likewise subject to public order, morality and health.
• Directive Principles — mentioned in the Constitution Bench observations as guiding the State's valid exercise of power for social welfare.

Judgement

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (Shah, J., for the Bench of M.B. Shah and S.N. Phukan, JJ.). The directions of the Madras High Court Single Judge stand. Those directions were:

• respondents 5 and 6 to follow the guidelines in Appa Rao's case;
• to bring down noise to the permitted level by acting against noisy vehicles; and
• to make the Church keep its speakers at a lower level.

The Court held that these directions are not illegal or erroneous. Why: they follow the Madras City Police Act, 1888, the Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The judgment does not mention costs.

Legal Principle / Ratio

• No religion prescribes prayer through loudspeakers, voice amplifiers or drums. A community cannot claim a right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion.
• Rights under Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, morality and health. Even a practice of amplified prayer must not adversely affect other people's rights, including the right not to be disturbed.
• The noise limits and controls in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 must be enforced. Directions to enforce them are valid.
• Noise already above the limits in a city area does not justify adding to it.

Key holding: "Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others". No religion requires prayer through loudspeakers or drums.

Obiter (the page's own classification; the judgment does not use the word):

• the Court's description of the health effects of noise;
• the protection due to babies, students, the aged and the sick; and
• its remark that citizens and authorities are unaware of the Rules and do not enforce them.

Subsequent Treatment

In Re: Noise Pollution v. Forum, Prevention of Environment and Sound Pollution, (In Re: Noise Pollution — Restricting use of loudspeakers), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 72 of 1998, connected with a civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21851 of 2003, Supreme Court of India, decided 18 July 2005. Citation (2005) 5 SCC 733 (user-supplied; not printed in the judgment text).

• Bench: R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I. and Ashok Bhan, J. R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I. wrote the judgment.

• The judgment has no numbered paragraphs.

• The references below are to its own Parts (I to X), its heading before Part I, and its Directions.

• Does it mention this case? Yes. It names Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn., (2000) 7 SCC 282, in Part VII (Judicial Opinion in India).

• What it said about this case. The Bench recorded that this Court held courts may give directions to control noise pollution even when the noise is directly connected with religious activities (Part VII). It then reproduced the passage on prayer, amplifiers and drums, the protection due to babies, students, the old and the sick, and the point that high noise elsewhere is no reason to add to it (Part VII). It did not overrule, doubt or limit the case. It cited and reproduced this Supreme Court decision. Its express approval, in Part VII, is worded as approval of the decisions of the several High Courts it had referred to.

• Other decisions the 2005 Court relied on with this case. The Court used them to show a settled line of opinion. Each point is as the 2005 judgment records it.

  • Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.): the Court agreed entirely with its reasoning on Article 21 (heading before Part I). It quoted the view that noise is a pollutant that offends Article 21 if it exceeds a reasonable limit (Part VII).
  • P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR (1993) Kerala 1: the Court agreed entirely with its reasoning on Article 21 (heading before Part I). It quoted the view that the right to speech includes the right not to listen, and that a loudspeaker has no right of its own (Part VII).
  • Om Birangana Religious Society v. State, 100 CWN 617: cited for the view that Article 19(1)(a) includes freedom not to listen and to remain silent (Part IV).
  • Appa Rao, M.S. v. Govt. of T.N., (1995) 1 LW 319 (Mad): the Madras High Court noted the health hazard and public disorder from uncontrolled noise. It directed strict conditions for amplifier and loudspeaker licences and a ban on horn-type loudspeakers and air horns (Part VII).
  • Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1998 Cal. 121: Article 19(1)(g) gives no right to a trade that creates pollution. People cannot be made a captive audience for loud fireworks (Part VII).
  • Rabin Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1985 Cal. 222: air horns were prohibited to prevent noise pollution (Part VII).
  • People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal. 215: development must be in the closest possible harmony with the environment (Part VII).
  • Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal v. The State, AIR 1958 Punjab 11, and Bhuban Ram v. Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas, AIR 1919 Calcutta 539: noise from machinery was punished as a nuisance under Section 290 IPC (Part VII).
  • Ivour Heyden v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1984 Cri LJ (NOC) 16: loud radio was excused as a trivial act. The Court noted that Section 95 IPC excuses only harm that a person of ordinary temper would not complain of (Part VII).
  • Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 571: cited for separate environmental tribunals and expert advice, and for environmental awareness among students (Part VII).

• What noise is (Part I; Air Act). The Court defined noise as unwanted sound. It noted that Section 2(a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 includes noise in the definition of "air pollutant". The definition covers any solid, liquid or gaseous substance, including noise, in the atmosphere. It applies if the concentration may injure people, living creatures, plants, property or the environment. The Court concluded that disturbance in the environment from undesirable sound is called noise pollution.

• Noise as a nuisance and health hazard (Part II). The Court held that noise is more than a nuisance and is a real danger to health. It affects sleep, hearing, communication and mental and physical health. The Court also discussed physiological effects and effects on children and the unborn. Melodious noise is not always a pollutant. It described temporary and permanent hearing loss, and said the risk of hearing loss is negligible below 75 dB(A) Leq (8-hr).

• Sources of noise pollution (Part III). The Court said noise is a by-product of industrialisation, urbanisation and modern civilisation. It has industrial and non-industrial sources. It listed road traffic, aircraft, railroads, construction, industry, noise in buildings and consumer products.

• Facts and issues of the 2005 case. These are recorded before Part I.

  • The writ petition was filed in the public interest by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer. It followed a newspaper report of 3 January 1998 that a 13-year-old girl was raped. Her cries for help went unheard because of loudspeaker music nearby. Later that evening she set herself ablaze and died of 100% burn injuries.
  • It complained of loudspeakers used in religious performances, marriage functions, parties and terrace parties. Its main prayer was that the existing laws on loudspeakers and loud sound systems be enforced.
  • The connected civil appeal came from the Kerala High Court, which had dismissed a challenge to an amendment of 11.10.2002 to the noise rules. The amendment was to the Noise Pollution Control and Regulation Rules, 1999. It let a State permit loudspeakers at night, between 10 pm and 12 midnight, on cultural or religious occasions for up to 15 days. The challenge said it had no guidelines and could be misused.
  • The Court took up the matters as public interest litigation and appointed amicus curiae (a lawyer appointed by the Court to assist it).

• Laws the 2005 Court listed (Part VI). The Court said the real problem is that the laws are not implemented. It listed:

  • the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000;
  • Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code (public nuisance);
  • Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (conditional order to remove a nuisance);
  • the Factories Act, 1948 (noise-induced hearing loss is a notifiable disease);
  • rules 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (horns and silencers);
  • the law of torts, where noise is actionable only if it materially interferes with ordinary comfort;
  • the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which covers noise as an air pollutant since 1987;
  • the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; and
  • the Explosives Act, 1884 for firecrackers.

• Why implementation fails (Part IX). The Court named these difficulties:

  • lack of will in the Executive;
  • lack of awareness among citizens;
  • statutes and rules that are not comprehensive;
  • implementing authorities that are not fully identified or specialised; and
  • a shortage of noise-measuring equipment, so that police measure sound by ear.

• Firecrackers: chemical composition over decibel testing (Part X). The Court recorded that the Department of Explosives said decibel testing needs costly instruments and expertise it lacks. It noted the existing limit of 125 dB(AI) or 145 dB(C)pk at 4 metres. The amicus had proposed 65 dB(A), which the Government rejected as too low. The industry had asked for 135 dB(AI) and 155 dB(C)pk. The Court said the standards do not need to be altered at the moment, and the Government is free to change them later. It preferred chemical-composition testing as workable in Indian conditions, and said this method is to be followed until a better one replaces it (Directions, Part I, item 1).

  • Reasons recorded: a sound level meter costs about Rs.3 lacs or more, and wind, temperature and humidity affect the reading. Testing at bursting means the firecrackers have already reached the market. The persons hauled up would be unwary retailers or users, not manufacturers. Size and mass of charge are the two prime factors that fix the noise level (Part X).

• No relaxation for festivals (Part X). The Court held that the ban on firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am must continue without relaxation for anyone. India is pluralistic. If one relaxation is allowed, there is no reason to refuse others, and the relaxation will become the rule. The Court quoted Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1999) Calcutta 15, on why European and American conditions cannot decide Indian noise levels. It suggested collective firework shows away from homes.

• Approval of the line of decisions. The Bench said it had referred to a few, not all, of the available judgments. It said Indian judicial opinion has been uniform. The right to live free from noise pollution is a fundamental right under Article 21. Noise beyond permitted limits is an inroad on it. It recorded its approval of the High Court decisions it had cited (end of Part VII).

• Noise and Article 21. Article 21 covers a life with human dignity. A person who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet in his house may stop noise reaching him. No one may create noise in his own premises that travels beyond it and troubles neighbours (heading before Part I).

• Article 19(1)(a) and loudspeakers. The Bench held that freedom of speech is not absolute. No one has a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying speech with loudspeakers. Others have a right to decline to listen. Anyone who raises the volume with artificial devices to force unwilling people to listen violates their right under Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be used to defeat Article 21 (heading before Part I).

• Religion and Article 25. On firecrackers, the Bench held that limiting the hours of bursting does not violate Article 25. It said no religious text book requires crackers on Diwali and that shelter in the name of religion cannot be sought for bursting crackers at odd hours (Part X, on Article 25). It refused relaxations for festivals, because India is pluralistic and a relaxation for one would have to be given to others (Part X).

• Directions on loudspeakers and other noise sources (Directions, Part II).

  1. At the boundary of a public place, noise from a loudspeaker, public address system or other source must not exceed the ambient standard for the area by more than 10 dB(A), or 75 dB(A), whichever is lower.
  2. No one may beat a drum or tom-tom, blow a trumpet, sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., except in public emergencies.
  3. Noise from a privately owned sound system must not exceed the ambient standard for the area by more than 5 dB(A) at the boundary of the private place.

• Related directions.

  • Horns may not be used at night in residential areas except in exceptional circumstances (Directions, Part III).
  • States must provide for seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and other equipment creating noise beyond permitted limits (Directions, Part V).
  • The Central and State Governments must take steps to lay down standards and notify authorities under rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, where not done (Directions, Part V).
  • The Bench issued the directions under Articles 141 and 142. They stay until modified by the Court or replaced by legislation (Directions, after Part IV).

• Firecrackers. The Bench directed a chemical-composition basis for testing firecrackers and a ban on sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (Directions, Part I, items 1 and 4).

• Labelling directions for firecrackers (Directions, Part I, item 5). Every manufacturer must print the chemical contents on the box of each firecracker. The box must also state that the firecracker meets the Department of Explosives requirement. A manufacturer who fails to do so, or whose box does not match the stated formula, may be held liable.

• Export directions for firecrackers (Directions, Part I, item 6). Firecrackers for export may be made with higher noise levels, on four conditions:

  1. The manufacturer must have an export order and may do so only then.
  2. The noise levels must conform to the standards of the country of export named in the order.
  3. The packing must have a different colour from firecrackers sold in India.
  4. The pack must carry a printed declaration that it is not for sale in India, or is only for export to the named country.

• Directions on the Department of Explosives (Directions, Part I, items 2, 3 and 4). The Department must research chemical formulae for each category of firecracker. It must fix the proportion and maximum weight of every chemical used. It may divide firecrackers into sound-emitting firecrackers and colour or light emitting firecrackers. The night-time ban does not apply to colour or light emitting firecrackers.

• Awareness directions (Directions, Part IV). The Court gave three directions:

  1. Text-books should carry chapters on the harm of noise. Schools should hold talks on it. Police and civil administration should be trained on the methods and laws to curb it.
  2. The State must play an active role. Resident Welfare Associations, service clubs and societies working against noise must be encouraged and involved.
  3. Special awareness campaigns must run before festivals and events where firecrackers are likely to be used.

• Closing orders (after Directions, Part V). The matters were closed with these directions. There is liberty to seek further directions, especially if any difficulty arises in implementing them. The writ petition, the civil appeal and all pending applications were treated as disposed of.

• More on firecrackers (Part X).

  • A manufacturer who fails to state the chemical contents, or whose box does not match the stated formula, is liable for criminal prosecution. The Directions say the manufacturer may be held liable.
  • The Court said people may choose firecrackers that give colour or light with little or no sound. Examples are snake tablets, sparklers, pencils, hunters, chakri, colour rockets, flowerpots and parachutes. These may have no timing limit. Experts should examine whether they give fumes and gases that cause air pollution.
  • Until the Department of Explosives makes its classification, there is a total ban on bursting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
  • The Department told the Court that noise could be controlled by fixing size, shape, composition and quantity of chemicals in the Authorised List, in four phases. The Chief Controller of Explosives later called fixing such norms impractical because of shortage of infrastructure. The Court still preferred the chemical method.
  • The Court quoted P.A. Jacob a second time: however wide a right is, it cannot be so wide as to destroy similar rights in others.

• Why decibel testing fails and chemical testing works (Part X). The Court recorded that the noise level of a firecracker is not stable, and that unsold stock would have to be destroyed. It found the chemical method more dependable and logical. Size and mass of charge can be checked, and illegal firecrackers are easier to identify. It also said prohibiting sale of firecrackers by noise level is practically unmanageable.

• Diwali and Article 25 (Part X). The Court said the restriction on time does not violate Article 25. Diwali is a festival of lights, not of noises. The Court also took up the argument that an inconvenience to a few should not restrain a greater lot, and answered it by quoting P.A. Jacob.

• Export exemption (Part X). The Department of Explosives said export firecrackers may be excluded from the noise standards, provided they follow the export rules. The Court agreed and allowed higher noise levels for export on the four conditions above. If such firecrackers are sold in India, the manufacturer and the dealer selling them are liable.

• Wider remarks on control (Part X, the section on how to check and control noise pollution). The Court said India needs one simple, specific and detailed law on noise pollution. Enforcing officers must be trained and equipped with audio meters. Sound level meters conforming to the Bureau of Indian Standards code are a bare necessity. Drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and other high-sound instruments must be regulated, not only loudspeakers. Horns that create noise beyond limits should not be made or sold. Loudspeakers and amplifiers found violating the law should be liable to seizure and confiscation. The Chief Controller of Explosives was agreeable to take steps on chemical contents but pointed to shortage of personnel, laboratories and equipment.

• Awareness remarks (Part X). The Court urged awareness in schools and text-books, training of police, and involvement of Resident Welfare Associations and service clubs. It suggested festival fireworks shows at one place and time. It said manufacturers can be encouraged to make firecrackers that show colour rather than make noise.

• Export exemption question. Part X also asked whether firecrackers made for export should be exempt from the Indian noise standards under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The Court did not decide the Article 25 and 26 argument in detail. It rested on the statement that no religion prescribes amplified prayer, and said only that any such practice must not harm others. It gave no test for cases where a group claims that a particular practice is part of its religion.
• The Board's survey blamed vehicular traffic for the noise. The judgment does not say what the survey showed about the Church's own share, except that the Single Judge found the Church was not the sole contributor. The Single Judge said that any noise above the permitted decibels has to be abated.
• The Court itself says the Rules exist but are not enforced and are little known. The judgment gives no new direction to remedy that gap. It says only that the High Court rightly directed implementation.

Significance

The case shows a religious group cannot cite Articles 25 and 26 to escape noise rules. It ties those Articles to the rights of neighbours and to public order, morality and health. It also puts the 2000 Noise Rules at the centre of enforcement, and records that the Rules are little known and not enforced. The Court also lists the health effects of noise and the groups most sensitive to it.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: no religion prescribes prayer through loudspeakers or drums, so no right to add to noise pollution can be claimed in the name of religion. Trap: the Court did not decide Articles 25 and 26 in detail.
• Bench: M.B. Shah and S.N. Phukan, JJ.; judgment by Shah, J. on 30 August 2000. Appeal from Madras High Court, Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998, order of 19.4.1999.
• Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000:
  • Rule 3 limits: residential 55 day, 45 night dB(A).
  • Rule 5 needs written permission for loudspeakers. It bans them at night (10 pm to 6 am) except in closed premises.
  • Rule 7 lets people complain if noise exceeds the limit by 10 dB(A) or more.
• Silence zone: at least 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts, and declared as a silence zone by the competent authority.
• Existing high noise is no excuse: noise already above limits from urbanisation does not permit others to add to it.
• Authorities: Appa Rao (Madras HC), Om Birangana (Calcutta HC), Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji (1975) 1 SCC 11 — no right is absolute.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so none are cited; each point is from Shah, J.'s opinion.