Yashwant Trimbak Oke v. State of Maharashtra

In a pending public interest case on noise in Mumbai, the State of Maharashtra asked the Bombay High Court to allow loudspeakers until 1.00 a.m. during Navratri 1996. The Court refused. It said the State must enforce the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Rules, and that festivals can be enjoyed without loudspeakers.

Quick Revision

Parties

Yashwant Trimbak Oke and others — petitioners; they brought the public interest litigation on noise pollution in Greater Mumbai and opposed the State's application (paras 1, 3).

State of Maharashtra and others — respondents; the State took out the Notice of Motion seeking permission for loudspeakers during Navratri (para 1).

Intervenors (intervenor: an outsider allowed to join a case) — persons who supported the State's stand. They argued that loudspeakers are needed for Garba (para 5).

The Advocate-General — appeared for the State and made its submissions (para 2).

Mr. S.A. Diwan and Mr. C.U. Singh — counsel for the petitioners (para 3).

Procedural History

1. In 1986 a Committee formed by the Court measured noise pollution in Mumbai and suggested ways to reduce it (para 6).
2. In this Petition, the Court directed on 13 March 1996 that joint measurements of noise be taken in different parts of the city (para 6).
3. The State filed an affidavit saying proper measures to ban loudspeakers would be taken, and the Court passed orders from time to time (para 6).
4. The State's earlier affidavit, by the same deponent, said the Government was considering a ban on loudspeakers in Mumbai (para 4).
5. By order dated 10 September 1996 the Court rejected a similar application for the Ganesh festival (para 8).
6. The State then took out this Notice of Motion for the Navratri festival. The Court dismissed it (paras 1, 10).
7. The report does not state the bench, the case number or the date of this judgment.

Facts

1. In 1986 the Court's Committee measured noise pollution in Mumbai, even without loudspeakers. It found noise pollution was much more, and it suggested ways to reduce it (para 6).
2. On 13 March 1996 the Court directed joint noise measurements at different parts of the city. The readings were above the permissible decibels (para 6).
3. The State filed an affidavit saying proper measures for banning loudspeakers would be taken. The same deponent had earlier said the Government was considering a ban in Mumbai (paras 4, 6).
4. The Court passed orders from time to time on this. Instead of complying with them, the State took out the present Notice of Motion (para 6).
5. On 10 September 1996 the Court rejected a similar application for the Ganesh festival. The Court noted that the respondents took proper steps to control noise during that festival (para 8).
6. The State then took out a Notice of Motion. It sought leave to grant permission to various applicants to hold the Navratri festival with loudspeakers in Greater Mumbai from 13 to 21 October 1996, up to 1.00 a.m. (para 1).
7. The Rules for Licensing, Controlling and Prohibiting the use of Loudspeaker in or near all public entertainment place in Greater Bombay Rule, 1994 empower the State's authorities to grant exemption in certain cases (para 1).
8. The normal time limit imposed by the State was 11.30 p.m. (para 5).
9. The State said the licensing authority would keep strict control and allow only box type loudspeakers (para 2).

Issues Raised

The report does not list issues as such. These questions arise from the submissions and the Court's discussion.

1. Should the Court permit the use of loudspeakers for the Navratri festival in Greater Mumbai from 13 to 21 October 1996, up to 1.00 a.m.? (paras 1, 6)
2. Does religion require loudspeakers for a festival, so that the use of loudspeakers can be protected as a religious practice? (paras 3, 8)
3. Can the Court give its approval to an act that violates the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules? (paras 3, 8)
4. What is the State Government's duty to enforce the Act and Rules against noise pollution? (paras 7, 8, 9)

Arguments Contended

For the State of Maharashtra (applicant)

1. The Rules, 1994 empower the State's authorities to grant exemption in certain cases (para 1).
2. Navratri is a special occasion for which exemption must be granted with certain limitations (para 2).
3. The licensing authority would strictly control the use of loudspeakers and would permit only box type loudspeakers (para 2).
4. Box type loudspeakers would have no adverse effect on noise pollution (para 2).
5. Considering the festival, the Court may permit loudspeakers up to 1.00 a.m. (para 2).

The report records no authorities relied on by the State.

For the Intervenors (supporting the State)

1. During Navratri, Garbas are played. Many persons treat this as a cultural and religious activity, and loudspeakers are absolutely necessary for it (para 5).
2. Permission may be given with stringent conditions, so that the religious sentiments of the public are not hurt (para 5).
3. The normal limit of 11.30 p.m. is insufficient in Mumbai. People return home after 9.00 p.m. and the celebrations start only after 11.00 p.m. (para 5).
4. At least two hours' extension of time should be allowed (para 5).

The report records no authorities relied on by the intervenors.

For the petitioners (Mr. S.A. Diwan and Mr. C.U. Singh)

1. The application was filed to obtain the Court's approval for the State to infringe the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It would also protect the State from the harsh consequences of section 15 read with section 17 of that Act (para 3).
2. Religion nowhere requires that festivals be celebrated by disturbing the peace of others, by creating noise or by using loudspeakers. A loudspeaker is not a must for observing a religious festival (para 3).
3. During Navratri, Garbas are played by the masses, and that does not require any loudspeaker (para 3).
4. Mr. Singh relied on the Division Bench decision in The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali. It held that religious faith and belief are distinct from religious practices, and practices running counter to public order, morality, health or social welfare must give way (para 3).
5. Mr. Diwan relied on the findings in item 14.4.3 of the Report of the National Commission on Urbanisation, Volume II, on noise pollution in cities. It sought stringent laws against sound amplification that creates a public nuisance, and a total ban on loudspeakers. It said social intercourse and religious discourses are personal matters and should remain so. It said the harmful effect of noise on the human mind is no less serious than pollution of the air we breathe or the water we drink. It said public assembly under Article 19 would be subject to regulation so that no public nuisance is created (para 4).
6. In the State's previous affidavit, the same deponent said the Government was considering a ban on loudspeakers in Mumbai. He now sought leave to use them (para 4).

Court's Reasoning

The Court (one judgment; the report names no judges)

1. Held: allowing loudspeakers after 11.30 p.m. would only add to the existing noise pollution in Mumbai (para 6).
2. Noted: the Committee formed by this Court in 1986 measured noise pollution in the city even without loudspeakers. The Committee found the noise much more and suggested measures to reduce it (para 6).
3. Noted: joint measurements were taken after the directions of 13 March 1996. Noise was above the permissible decibels (para 6).
4. Noted: the Government had filed an affidavit saying measures for banning loudspeakers would be taken. The Court passed orders for this from time to time (para 6).
5. Noted: instead of complying with those orders, the State took out the present Notice of Motion (para 6).
6. Held: the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed under it are meant for enforcement, not for violation (para 7).
7. Held: it is the State Government's duty to enforce the Act rigorously and not to find excuses for not implementing it (para 7).
8. Noted: effective control of noise disturbance is for the well being of society. The adverse effect of noise pollution is scientifically examined and well known. It harms the health of citizens. The Court did not discuss this further (para 7).
9. Noted: the Court quoted the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India. An environmental law says what people can and cannot do. If people respect it voluntarily, the law achieves its object (para 7).
10. Noted: Enviro-Legal said that where the law conflicts with personal interest, self-discipline and respect for law often disappear (para 7).
11. Noted: Enviro-Legal said "Enactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement is worse than not enacting law at all." (para 7).
12. Noted: Enviro-Legal said a law is usually enacted because the legislature feels it is necessary. It is meant to be obeyed by all, and not only by the law abiding (para 7).
13. Noted: Enviro-Legal said continued violations are made possible by means known to violators. Tolerance by the Enforcement Authorities encourages lawlessness (para 7).
14. Noted: Enviro-Legal said the Parliament enacted the Water Act, Air Act and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to protect and preserve the environment for future generations and to ensure good quality of life (para 7).
15. Noted: Enviro-Legal said these Acts, Rules and Notifications prohibit or regulate certain activities. Such provisions must be effectively enforced. Passive or active condoning of infringement for personal gain encourages a lawless society (para 7).
16. Noted: Enviro-Legal said violation of anti-pollution laws harms the existing quality of life. Non-enforcement often causes ecological imbalance and degradation. Future generations bear the harm (para 7).
17. Noted: the Court had rejected a similar application during the Ganesh festival by its order dated 10 September 1996. It observed that religious ceremony nowhere provides that a loudspeaker is a must on festival days (para 8).
18. Held: it is difficult to distinguish the Ganesh festival from the Navratri festival (para 8).
19. Noted: during the Ganesh festival the respondents had taken proper steps to control noise pollution (para 8).
20. Held: there is no justifiable reason to permit loudspeakers during Navratri. It would only increase noise pollution (para 8).
21. Held: there is no question of the Court granting permission, or putting its seal, on something that violates the Environment Act and the Rules (para 8).
22. Held: it is for the State Government to implement the Act and Rules. It must prohibit activities that harm the lives of persons who cannot oppose noise pollution for various restraints (para 8).
23. Held: it is the State's duty not to encourage activities that lead to violation of law (para 8).
24. Held: "These festivals can be enjoyed even without loudspeaker." (para 8).
25. Noted: nobody can object to Navratri or any festival. Garba or Dandiya were played without loudspeaker noise in the recent past and can be played without loudspeakers (para 8).
26. Held: the Court reiterated the directions in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the order of 10 September 1996 (para 8).
27. Noted: the earlier direction at para 8 asked the respondents to act against additional noise pollution that harms society. The State cannot wash its hands by saying it may lead to a law and order situation (para 8).
28. Noted: the earlier direction required the respondents to minimize the extra noise from loudspeakers, bands, drums and firecrackers (para 8).
29. Noted: the earlier direction at para 9 required the State to issue advertisements to educate the public about noise pollution and its effect on health (para 8).
30. Noted: the earlier direction at para 10 required the Police Commissioner to instruct police stations to act early on noise complaints. Organizers must give an undertaking that loudspeakers will be used only within permissible limits and permitted timing (para 8).
31. Held: the State Government must take appropriate steps to control noise pollution from loudspeakers during these festivals. It must protect the silent sufferers, such as students, the old, the infirm or others not interested (para 9).
32. Held: "It is for the State to implement the law as it is." (para 9).
33. Held: with these observations and directions, the Notice of Motion is dismissed (para 10).

Authorities

• The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (Division Bench of the same High Court). Citation not given in the report. Relied on by the petitioners for the distinction between religious faith and belief, and religious practices. The Court did not comment on it separately (para 3).
• Report of the National Commission on Urbanisation, Volume II, item 14.4.3. Relied on by the petitioners on noise pollution in cities. The Court did not comment on it separately (para 4).
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India, JT 1996(4) 263 (Supreme Court). Quoted at length to show that anti-pollution laws must be enforced and that tolerating their breach is worse than having no law (para 7).
• The Court's own order dated 10 September 1996 on the Ganesh festival. Followed; its paras 8, 9 and 10 were reiterated (para 8).
• The Committee formed by this Court in 1986. Its noise measurements were relied on as showing existing high noise pollution (para 6).
• Provisions named, whose text the judgment does not set out:
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 15 (read with Section 17). The petitioners said the State wanted protection from the harsh consequences of these sections (para 3).
  • The Greater Bombay loudspeaker Rules, 1994. They empower the authorities to grant exemption in certain cases (para 1).
  • The Water Act and Air Act. They are named in the passage quoted from Enviro-Legal (para 7).
  • Article 19 of the Constitution. It is named in the quoted Urbanisation Report (para 4).
• Also cited in footnotes: the judgment has no footnotes.

Judgement

1. The Notice of Motion of the State Government is dismissed (para 10).
2. The Court will not grant permission, or put its seal, on the use of loudspeakers for Navratri in violation of the Environment Act and the Rules (para 8).
3. The respondents must take appropriate action to prevent additional noise pollution. They must see that extra noise from loudspeakers, bands, drums and firecrackers is minimized (para 8, repeating the order of 10 September 1996).
4. The State Government must issue advertisements to educate the public about noise pollution and its adverse effect on health (para 8, repeating the order of 10 September 1996).
5. The Police Commissioner must instruct police stations to take action as early as possible on complaints of noise pollution (para 8, repeating the order of 10 September 1996).
6. When permitting loudspeakers, an undertaking must be taken from organizers that loudspeakers will be modulated only within permissible limits and timing and used during permitted timing (para 8, repeating the order of 10 September 1996).
7. The State Government must take appropriate steps to control noise pollution by loudspeakers during these festivals and protect the silent sufferers (para 9).
8. The report states no order as to costs.

Legal Principle / Ratio

The State must enforce the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Rules, and a court will not approve their violation for a festival. Religious ceremony nowhere makes a loudspeaker a must, so a festival can be held without one. In the Court's words, "These festivals can be enjoyed even without loudspeaker." (para 8).

The judgment labels nothing as obiter.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The report does not name the judges or give the date, so the order cannot be placed from the text alone.
• The Court did not discuss the Narasu Appa Mali passage or the Urbanisation Report. It rested on the duty to enforce the Act and on its Ganesh festival order.
• The judgment does not set out the text of the Act or the 1994 Rules. It does not say whether the 1994 Rules' exemption power was valid for festivals.
• The Court did not decide whether a loudspeaker can ever be part of a religious practice. It said only that religious ceremony nowhere makes it a must (para 8).

Significance

• It shows the Court refusing a State request for a festival exemption from noise control.
• It treats the State as bound to enforce the anti-pollution law, and not entitled to excuse non-enforcement (paras 7, 8).
• It protects silent sufferers such as students, the old and the infirm (para 9).
• It is a short order that applies the Enviro-Legal reasoning on enforcement of environmental law to noise pollution.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: the State must enforce the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Rules; it may not find excuses (para 7).
• Rule: the Court will not put its seal on a violation of the Act and Rules (para 8).
• Rule: a loudspeaker is not a must for a festival; festivals can be enjoyed without one (para 8).
• Enviro-Legal passage: tolerating infringement of a law is worse than not enacting the law (para 7).
• Directions: the State must advertise about noise pollution, the Police Commissioner must instruct police stations, and organizers must give an undertaking (para 8).
• Trap: the Court did not stop Navratri or Garba. It refused only the loudspeaker permission.
• Trap: the report names no bench, date or case number. Do not cite them from memory.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.