Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

An association of public activists asked the Delhi High Court to act on noise pollution (unwanted or excessive sound that harms people) from fireworks and loudspeakers at festivals and marriages. The Court explained what noise pollution is, noted the rules that already exist, and ordered one direction on enforcing the loudspeaker rule.

Quick Revision

Parties

Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand — petitioner. It is an association of public activists that filed the petition in the public interest (para 1).

Government of NCT of Delhi and others — respondents. The Government was represented by Mr. Shali, who told the Court about the Delhi Police circulars and, on instruction, that Delhi has no firecracker manufacturing (paras 7-8).

Procedural History

1. The petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by an association of public activists as a public interest petition (a case filed for the benefit of the public) (para 1).
2. A Division Bench of Arijit Pasayat, C.J. and D.K. Jain, J. heard it. The Chief Justice wrote the order, dated 23 July 2001.
3. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly (para 26).
4. The judgment does not state the writ petition number. No earlier court decision is recorded.

Facts

1. The petitioner was an association of public activists. It filed a petition in the public interest (para 1).
2. Fireworks were displayed and used during festivals and marriages. Adults and children suffered physical and mental hazard (para 1).
3. High-sounding explosive fireworks and other blaring sound-producing devices caused noise pollution that was hazardous (para 1).
4. Loudspeakers were used indiscriminately. Noise pollution had become a routine affair that affected the mental and physical health of citizens (para 1).
5. The noise continued although the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Delhi had issued specific instructions (para 1).
6. The petitioner said the manner in which sound pollution was caused, and its effect on health, was a cause for great concern (para 1).
7. The Government counsel said the Delhi Police had issued circulars, published in newspapers. They told people that using loudspeakers and other loud music systems was prohibited (para 7).
8. Counsel said, on instruction, that no firecracker manufacturing took place in Delhi (para 8).

Issues Raised

The judgment does not frame issues. The questions below are taken from what the Court examined.

1. What is pollution, and what is noise pollution (paras 2-3)?
2. What law, Indian and English, controls noise and firecrackers (paras 5-11, 19-20)?
3. Do Articles 19(1) and 25 allow loudspeakers, and can noise be restricted under them (paras 12-13)?
4. Does noise exceeding a reasonable limit offend Article 21 (para 24)?
5. What measures and directions should follow to control noise (para 25)?

Arguments Contended

For the petitioner:

• Fireworks at festivals and marriages cause physical and mental hazard to adults and children (para 1).
• Loudspeakers are used indiscriminately, and the noise harms the mental and physical health of citizens (para 1).
• The noise goes on despite the specific instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Delhi (para 1).
• The petitioner relied on no authorities in the judgment's account.

For the respondents (Government of NCT of Delhi):

• Mr. Shali said the Delhi Police had issued circulars, published in newspapers, that using loudspeakers and loud music systems is prohibited (para 7).
• On instruction, he said that no firecracker manufacturing takes place in Delhi (para 8).
• The respondents' arguments are not recorded beyond this.

Court's Reasoning

Opinion of the Court (Arijit Pasayat, C.J., for the Bench)

• 1. Noted: the petition complained of fireworks and loudspeakers that cause hazard and noise pollution despite police instructions. (para 1)
• 2. Noted: the Court gave the dictionary meaning of the word pollute from the Random House Dictionary. It means to make foul, unclean, impure or morally unclean. (para 2)
• 3. Noted: the Halsbury's definition of pollution (contamination of the environment) covers only water. It does not cover pollution in general. (para 2)
• 4. Noted: noise pollution simply means unwanted sound in the atmosphere. It is unwanted because it lacks an agreeable quality. (para 2)
• 5. Held: noise is sound, but it is pollution when the effects of sound become undesirable. Noted: the Encyclopedia Britannica calls noise any undesired sound, and the Encyclopedia Americana says that noise by definition is unwanted sound. (para 2)
• 6. Noted: any sound may be noise if circumstances make it disturbing. Even sweet music is noise to a person trying to concentrate or sleep. (para 2)
• 7. Noted: the Court quoted Richard Maybe's Handbook on Pollution. The root cause of pollution lies in the world people have built and their thoughtless worship of progress at any cost. Pollution is a progress crisis. (para 2)
• 8. Noted: environmental laws have failed to give enough remedies to individual sufferers. Their criminal liability is generalised and of little use to victims. (para 3)
• 9. Noted: there is no independent law on noise pollution. (para 3)
• 10. Noted: the Supreme Court recently dealt with noise pollution in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association. (para 4)
• 11. Noted: the Central Government framed the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. (para 5)
• 12. Noted: rule 3 sets ambient air quality standards for noise by area or zone, in a Schedule. Day-time is 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. and night-time is 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. (para 5)
• 13. Noted: the Schedule defines a silence zone (an area declared silent by the competent authority) as an area of not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. Mixed areas may be declared as one of the four categories by the competent authority. (para 5)
• 14. Noted: rule 4 says noise levels in any area must not exceed the Schedule standards. The authority is responsible for enforcing noise control and compliance with the standards. (para 6)
• 15. Noted: rule 5 says a loudspeaker or public address system needs written permission from the authority. It may not be used at night, between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m., except in closed premises for communication within, such as auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls. (para 6)
• 16. Noted: rule 6 makes a person liable to penalty for offences in a silence zone. These are playing music or using sound amplifiers, beating a drum or blowing a horn, and showing performances that attract crowds. (para 6)
• 17. Noted: rule 7 lets a person complain to the authority if noise exceeds the standard by 10 dB(A) or more. The authority must act on the complaint under the rules and other law. (para 6)
• 18. Noted: rule 8 lets the authority issue written orders to prevent or regulate music, sounds from loudspeakers and noisy trades. It may act on a police station officer's report or other information, to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury. (para 6)
• 19. Noted: the authority may rescind, modify or alter its order on its own motion or on an application. Before disposing of the application, it must hear the applicant and record reasons for any rejection. (para 6)
• 20. Noted: under rule 2(c), the District Magistrate and the Police Commissioner are part of the machinery that must maintain the standards. The Rules name them as the authority. (para 7)
• 21. Noted: the Explosives Act, 1884 governs the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and export of explosives. Transactions in firecrackers fall under it. (para 8)
• 22. Noted: rule 87 of the Explosives Rules, 1983 bars manufacture of explosives except in a licensed factory or premises. Rule 113 deals with storage, possession, sale and use, and needs a licence from the Controller of Explosives. (para 8)
• 23. Noted: the DCP (Licensing) can permit storage of firecrackers up to 50 kg and Chinese sparklers up to 400 kg. Larger quantities need the Controller's permission. (para 8)
• 24. Noted: safety measures are in rules 113 to 128. Rule 154 requires a no objection certificate before a licence is granted. In Delhi it comes from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Delhi Fire Service and the local police. The MCD ensures the location of possession, storage and sale in commercial areas. (para 8)
• 25. Noted: in England the Noise Abatement Act, 1960 was superseded in part by the Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Part III (Section 57 to 74) deals with noise control. (para 9)
• 26. Noted: under Section 58 of that Act, noise must amount to a nuisance (an unreasonable interference with comfort or use of property) in the ordinary legal sense, per Bandbury Urban Sanitary Authority v. Page. The nuisance need not be public. Interference with personal comfort is enough. (para 9)
• 27. Noted: a private nuisance generally presupposes possession and control of the land it comes from. Whether noise is a nuisance is a question of degree. Malicious noise is taken into account, per Christle v. Davey. (para 9)
• 28. Noted: the Court described Section 62 of the 1974 Act as perfect control of street noise, which Indian law should emulate. Street means a highway or other road, footway, square or court open to the public. (para 10)
• 29. Noted: Section 62(1) bans a street loudspeaker between 9 in the evening and 8 in the morning. It also bans one at any other time for advertising entertainment, trade or business, and one that forms part of a public telephone system. Clauses (d) to (g) list exceptions. (para 10)
• 30. Noted: the exceptions cover a vehicle's own horn or speaker used without annoyance. They also cover transport announcements, travelling showmen, pleasure fairs and emergencies. (para 10)
• 31. Noted: a perishable-food vehicle may use a speaker between noon and 7 in the evening, only to show that food is on sale, and without reasonable cause for annoyance. (para 10)
• 32. Noted: Raymond v. Cook held that it is enough if an instrument is calculated to cause annoyance. Actual annoyance to persons need not be proved. (para 10)
• 33. Noted: The phrase open to the public in Section 62 means the same as the public having access. A street covers any road where people have access as of right or by tolerance, per Harrison v. Hill and Buchanan v. Motor Insurer's Bureau. (para 11)
• 34. Noted: in India the position is different. The use of a loudspeaker takes the status of a fundamental right through Articles 19(1) and 25. (para 12)
• 35. Noted: Article 19(1) lists the rights to speech and expression, to assemble peaceably without arms, to form associations or unions, and to move freely throughout India. (para 12)
• 36. Noted: the rights in (a), (b), (c) and (d) are subject to reasonable restrictions. The listed grounds are: sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; the general public; contempt of court (disobeying or disrespecting a court); defamation; and incitement to offence. (para 12)
• 37. Noted: the Court observed that the general public ground applies only to the right to move freely. That right has little to do with loudspeakers. (para 12)
• 38. Noted: speeches, marriage and birthday gatherings, fairs, processions, shobha yatras and election campaigns go with loudspeakers. The Court observed that the restrictions on these rights are on grounds other than noise being a pollutant. (para 12)
• 39. Noted: decency is the one ground that could conceivably cover a ban on noise from loudspeakers. The word is undefined, and the public must wait until a higher court declares noise contrary to decency. (para 13)
• 40. Noted: a municipal bye-law that requires permission for a loudspeaker does not infringe Article 19(1)(a). The State may regulate loudspeakers and similar devices without infringing that right. (para 13)
• 41. Noted: Article 25(1) protects freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. The right is subject to public order, morality and health. (para 13)
• 42. Held: since the right is subject to health, noise from loudspeakers can be prohibited in the interest of health. Noted: the link between noise and health must still be judicially established. (para 13)
• 43. Noted: aeroplanes, trains, cars, radio and television also add to noise. Noise is now considered the most dangerous pollutant of man's environment. (para 13)
• 44. Noted: noise causes irritation. It also constricts the arteries, raises adrenaline and makes the heart work faster. Continuous noise raises cholesterol and makes people prone to heart attacks and strokes. (para 14)
• 45. Noted: health experts say excessive noise can lead to neurosis and nervous breakdown. People near airports show a high incidence of emotional disaster. (para 14)
• 46. Noted: noise causes hearing problems in children. It makes them irritable and hyperactive and slows the growth of their mental faculties. (para 14)
• 47. Noted: studies found more birth defects, stillbirths and low birth weight near airports. The Court cited a Los Angeles study of more than 2,25,000 births by Dr. Nowall Jones, and similar results near Heathrow. (para 14)
• 48. Noted: neonatal development suffers if an expectant mother faces continuous noise stress. The tests may or may not be accurate, but deserve serious consideration. The Court referred to Tulsidas, who sang that Hanuman's roar caused abortions among demonesses in Lanka. (para 14)
• 49. Noted: noise is measured in decibels. One decibel is the threshold of hearing, 30 is near whispering and 60 is normal talk. Continuous noise above 90 decibels can cause hearing loss and irreversible nervous changes. (para 15)
• 50. Noted: the World Health Organisation fixed 45 decibels as the safe level for a city. Bombay, New Delhi, Calcutta and Madras usually register more than 90 decibels. Bombay is rated the third noisiest city in the world, and New Delhi follows closely. (para 15)
• 51. Noted: by international standards, noise up to 64 decibels is tolerable. Other countries introduced noise-proof vehicles, road sound barriers, tunnels instead of flyovers and limits on noisy traffic. (para 16)
• 52. Noted: noise has two sources, industrial and non-industrial. The movement against it is weak in India because most people see noise as part of routine and modern life. People must realise its dangers and take remedial measures. (para 17)
• 53. Noted: causes of noise are natural and man-made. Man-made causes include machines, automobiles, trains, aeroplanes, religious and social celebrations, construction, speeches and loudspeakers. (para 18)
• 54. Noted: noise affects sleep, hearing, communication, and mental and physical health. It may even lead to madness. Melodious sounds, natural or man-made, cannot always be treated as pollution. (para 18)
• 55. Noted: India has separate Acts on water and air pollution, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It has no independent Act on noise pollution. (para 19)
• 56. Noted: noise drew attention after the enactment of the Environment (Protection) Act. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 added noise to the definition of air pollutant instead of making a self-contained law. (para 19)
• 57. Noted: the Air Act, 1981 was enacted under Article 253 to implement the Stockholm Conference decision of June 1972. Section 2(a) defined an air pollutant as a solid, liquid or gaseous substance in the atmosphere that is or tends to be injurious. (para 20)
• 58. Noted: after Section 2(1) of the 1987 Amendment, the definition of air pollutant reads: any solid, liquid or gaseous substance, including noise, present in the atmosphere. (para 20)
• 59. Noted: the Air Pollution Board was preparing specific noise standards for industry and ambient noise. The Bureau of Indian Standards was also working on new standards. (para 21)
• 60. Noted: green trees absorb sound, and street trees absorb sonic bangs. Vehicles should be compelled to fit efficient mufflers or silencers. (para 21)
• 61. Noted: noise above 90 decibels for long periods can cause hearing loss and neurological, digestive and metabolic disorder. A single exposure of 150 decibels is said to injure the ear permanently. (para 21)
• 62. Noted: the Court said the environmental situation must be treated as an emergency. It quoted the Apex Court that pollution is still treated as a subject of halting legislation, hypocritical implementation and helping interpretation. (para 22)
• 63. Noted: environmental laws should be refined to allow compensation to be assessed. They should also be re-evaluated so that violations become unnecessary, through incentives to industrialists and education of the layman. (para 22)
• 64. Noted: noise may amount to a nuisance. Then the person causing it can be restrained by an injunction (a court order to stop an act). This holds even if the noise comes from business. (para 23)
• 65. Noted: in Gotham Construction Co. v. Amulya Krishna Ghose, noise from hammering steel sheets was the nuisance. It was held that no money could give adequate relief to the plaintiff and neighbours. (para 23)
• 66. Noted: the report adds that the Court is an expert of experts on actual discomfort. It needs no expert opinion on whether hammering steel plates with hammers up to four pounds makes a terrific noise. (para 23)
• 67. Held: a person can claim an injunction in a noisy locality in one case. A machine, instrument or performance at the defendant's premises must add substantially to the noise. It must also materially affect the physical comfort of the plaintiff's house. (para 23)
• 68. Held: pollution of air, water or atmosphere through noise remains part of, and not severable from, the common law of nuisance. This continues despite the 1981, 1974 and 1986 Acts. Noted: those Acts placed pollution control in the wider setting of social justice. (para 23)
• 69. Noted: the effect of noise on health has not yet received the attention of the judiciary that it deserves. (para 24)
• 70. Held: pollution is wrongful contamination of the environment that causes material injury to an individual's right. Noise can well be regarded as a pollutant because it contaminates the environment, causes nuisance and affects health. It "would, therefore, offend Article 21, if it exceeds a reasonable limit". (para 24)
• 71. Noted: noise can be curbed by eco-friendly technology, machinery designed within noise limits, sound-proof roads, trees on roadsides and outside factories, and public awareness through seminars and conferences. (para 25)
• 72. Noted: houses of God should be kept peaceful and noise free, since God is not deaf. Flights should be planned to curb noise, and a Noise Code covering all aspects of noise pollution may be enacted. (para 25)
• 73. Noted: the Court said noise pollution has crossed the danger point and, like smog, is a slow agent of death. It listed immediate measures (i) to (xiii) (see the Judgement section). (para 25)
• 74. Noted: rule 5 is "more observed in breach than in observance". Held: in direction (xiii), the Court directed publicity for the rule and made area SDMs responsible for its strict compliance. (para 25(xiii))
• 75. Held: the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (para 26)

Authorities

• Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association and Others — Supreme Court; cited as a recent Apex Court case dealing with noise pollution. The judgment gives no citation. (para 4)
• Bandbury Urban Sanitary Authority v. Page, (1991) 8 QBD 97 (as printed in the judgment) — cited for Section 58 of the English Act; noise must amount to a nuisance in the ordinary legal sense. (para 9)
• Christle v. Davey, (1303) 1 Ch 316 (as printed in the judgment) — cited for the rule that malicious noise is taken into account. (para 9)
• Raymond v. Cook, (1958) 3 All ER 407 — held that an instrument calculated to cause annoyance is enough. Actual annoyance need not be shown. (para 10)
• Harrison v. Hill, 1932 SC (JT) 13 — cited for the meaning of open to the public. (para 11)
• Buchanan v. Motor Insurer's Bureau, (1955) 1 All ER 607 — cited with Harrison v. Hill for the same meaning. (para 11)
• Gotham Construction Co. v. Amulya Krishna Ghose, AIR 1969 Cal 91 — injunction against noise from hammering steel sheets; the Court is an expert of experts on discomfort. (para 23)

Also cited in footnotes: none. The judgment has no footnotes. Reference works quoted in the judgment: Random House Dictionary of the English Language (College Edition, 1977), Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Vol. 38 and Vol. 34, paragraph 324), Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 16, 1968, p. 558), Encyclopedia Americana, and Richard Maybe's Handbook on Pollution (paras 2 and 9).

Statutes and provisions mentioned

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 — source of the Noise Rules. (para 5)
• Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, rules 2(c), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the Schedule — set out in the steps above. (paras 5-7)
• Explosives Act, 1884; Explosives Rules, 1983, rules 87, 113 to 128 and 154 — regulate firecrackers and storage. (para 8)
• Noise Abatement Act, 1960 (England), Section 1 — superseded by Section 11(9) of the Control of Pollution Act, 1974. (para 9)
• Control of Pollution Act, 1974 (England), Part III, Section 57 to Section 74 — measures for noise control. (para 9)
• Control of Pollution Act, 1974, Section 58 — noise must be a nuisance in the ordinary legal sense. (para 9)
• Control of Pollution Act, 1974, Section 62 — controls loudspeakers in a street. (paras 10-11)
• Street Offences Act, 1959, Section 1(4) — uses the phrase open to the public. (para 11)
• Article 19(1)(a) to (d) — speech, assembly, association and movement, subject to reasonable restrictions. (paras 12-13)
• Article 25(1) — freedom of conscience and religion, subject to public order, morality and health. (para 13)
• Article 21 — the right to life; offended by noise beyond a reasonable limit. (para 24)
• Article 253 — the power under which the Air Act, 1981 was enacted. (para 20)
• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — separate Act on water pollution. (paras 19, 23)
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Section 2(a) — defines air pollutant. (para 20)
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 (47 of 1987), Section 2(1) — adds noise to the definition of air pollutant. (paras 19-20)
• Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — District and Sub-Divisional Magistrates to be empowered to issue prohibitory orders on loudspeaker hours. (para 25(iv))

Judgement

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly (para 26). Only direction 13 is expressed as a direction (the Court says it directs). Items 1 to 12 are suggestions on what may or should be done (para 25).

1. The prescribed Government of India noise standards may be enforced strictly in letter and spirit.
2. Separate courts for noise pollution may be established.
3. Cases should be decided within a prescribed time limit.
4. All District Magistrates and Sub-Divisional Magistrates should be empowered to issue prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These would limit loudspeaker hours at religious places and other social gatherings.
5. Environment protection should be compulsory at school, college and university levels.
6. The press and media should highlight the effects of noise pollution and its remedy.
7. The District Administration and Pollution Control Boards should work out ways to ensure strict compliance with the statutory provisions, scanty though they are.
8. The Central and State Governments should consider adequate legislation. The menace seems silent but could produce a future generation of deaf persons.
9. Permanent monitoring bodies should review the situation and suggest remedies. The Central or State Government decides their composition.
10. Firecrackers in religious festivals and marriage processions should be regulated properly. In residential areas there must be no likelihood of danger to life and property.
    • Firecrackers are prohibited on public streets in marriage processions.
    • Anars, phuljaris and the like may be permitted in a restricted manner, at the place of marriage in the open area comprising not less than 100 metres around it.
11. Any permitted use should be within specified time periods. It should not be allowed in silence zones, hospitals, nursing homes and other health centres.
12. The press and electronic media should periodically show why young children should not use dangerous firecrackers, and how to use them safely.
13. Direction: the authority empowered under the Noise Rules must give wide publicity to rule 5 by advertisements in at least six national daily newspapers.
    • The area S.D.M.s must see that the rule is strictly followed in letter and spirit.
    • Any default is misconduct. The defaulting officer is liable to disciplinary action, besides action for disobeying the Court's order.

The judgment does not mention costs.

Legal Principle / Ratio

• Pollution is wrongful contamination of the environment that causes material injury to an individual's right. Noise can be regarded as a pollutant, and it offends Article 21 if it exceeds a reasonable limit.
• Pollution through noise remains part of the common law of nuisance, even after the pollution control statutes.
• The Court noted that rule 5 on loudspeakers was broken more often than it was followed. It directed publicity for the rule and made area SDMs responsible for its enforcement (para 25(xiii)).

Key holding: noise "would, therefore, offend Article 21, if it exceeds a reasonable limit" (para 24).

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, Supreme Court of India, decided 18 July 2005

• Bench: R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I. and Ashok Bhan, J. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so references are to its parts.
• It cited this case by name in the passage before Part I, with the Kerala decision in P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR (1993) Kerala 1.
• The Supreme Court said both High Court decisions upheld the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution as guaranteed by Article 21.
• It said it had carefully gone through their reasoning and the principle of law they laid down, particularly their exposition of Article 21. It found itself in entire agreement (passage before Part I).
• In Part VII (judicial opinion in India), the Supreme Court repeated this case's statement that noise can be regarded as a pollutant and offends Article 21 if it exceeds a reasonable limit.
• The Supreme Court also said that Article 19(1)(a) cannot be used to defeat the Article 21 right of others to a peaceful, pollution-free life.
• Present position: the Delhi High Court's Article 21 holding on noise was approved by the Supreme Court.

Other later cases (not summarized): none fetched. A search found no later case that distinguished or overruled this decision.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The Article 21 holding is stated in one sentence (para 24). The Court gives no test for what a "reasonable limit" is in that paragraph.
• Paras 12 and 13 treat loudspeaker use as a right under Articles 19(1) and 25 and say noise is not a listed ground. They leave decency and the noise-health link open until a higher court decides.
• Only one item in para 25 is a direction. The rest is a list of suggestions, so enforcement depends on the authorities acting on them.
• The Court notes that the studies cited may or may not be accurate (para 14), so its health findings rest on reported studies rather than evidence in this case.

Significance

• The judgment gives a detailed account of noise pollution, its health effects and the Indian and English law on it.
• It links noise to Article 21 and to the common law of nuisance.
• It shows the Court using direction (xiii) to put the loudspeaker rule into effect through publicity and officer accountability.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: noise can be regarded as a pollutant, and it offends Article 21 if it exceeds a reasonable limit (para 24). Trap: the sentence says "if it exceeds a reasonable limit". Not all noise offends Article 21.
• Rule: noise is "unwanted sound", and sound becomes pollution when its effects become undesirable (para 2).
• Rule: the 1987 amendment added noise to the definition of air pollutant in the Air Act, 1981. Trap: India has no separate noise Act (paras 19-20).
• Rule: rule 5 of the Noise Rules bars loudspeakers at night (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) except in closed premises, and needs written permission otherwise (para 6).
• Rule: Article 25(1) is subject to health, so loudspeaker noise can be prohibited in the interest of health. The noise-health link must be judicially established (para 13).
• Trap: items (i) to (xii) of para 25 are suggestions. Only item (xiii) is a direction, with publicity in six national dailies and SDM responsibility.
• Rule: noise pollution stays part of the common law of nuisance (para 23).

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the judgment text as saved; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.