Noise Pollution (5) (2005) SCC 733

CASE BRIEF

In Re: Noise Pollution (5) (2005) SCC 733

Writ Petition (Civil) 72 of 1998

Petitioner: In Re: Noise Pollution. Restricting use of Loudspeakers

Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution

Respondent: Union of India & Anr.

Bench: CJI R.C. Lahoti

CJ Ashok Bhan

Date of Judgement: 18/07/2005

Statutes Referred:

Legislations in the World:

1. The Noise Abetment Act, 1960, The United Kingdom
2. The English Control of Pollution Act, 1974, The United Kingdom
3. Control on Pollution Act, 1974, The United Kingdom
4. Anti-Pollution Basic law, Japan
5. Noise Act, 1996, The United Kingdom
6. The US Noise Pollution and Abetment Act, 1970
7. The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 65- Noise Control, The United States
8. Law of the People’s Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Pollution from Environmental Noise (adopted on 29/10/1996)
9. Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance.

Legislations in India

1. Article 19 (1), The Constitution of India
2. Article 21, The Constitution of India
3. Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Section 133 of the Criminal Procedural Code
5. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
6. Sections 89 and 98, Factories Act, 1948
7. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
8. Rules 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989
9. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
10. The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986
11. Fireworks (The Explosives) Act, 1884

Cases Referred:

1. Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.)
2. P.A. Jacob vs Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR, (1993) Kerala, 1.
3. Om Birangana Religious Society vs State 100 CWN 617
4. Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal vs The State AIR 1958 Punjab 11
5. Bhubhan Ram & Ors. Vs Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas AIR 1919 Calcutta 539
6. Ivour Heyden vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1984 Cri LJ (NOC) 16
7. Rabin Mukherjee vs State of West Bengal AIR 1985 Cal 222
8. People United for Better Living in Calcutta vs State of West Bengal (AIR 1993 Cal 215)
9. Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association vs Commissioner of Police, Calcutta AIR 1998 Cal 121.
10. Appa Rao, M.S. vs Government of T.N. (1995) 1 LW 319 (Mad)
11. Church of God (Full Gospel) in India vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn. (2000) 7 SCC 282
12. Charan Lal Sahu vs Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1480)
13. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2004) 1 SCC 571
14. Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati vs State of West Bengal AIR (1999) Calcutta 15

Facts

1. On 13/01/1998, a 13 year- old girl was being raped. Her cries for help could not be heard because of the blaring noises in the neighbourhood. Hence, to take this issue, Shri Anil K Mittal filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 72/98. That writ petition complained of noise created by loud speakers used in religious performances, bhajans and other commercial localities. The main prayer of that writ petition was to rigourously enforce the current laws against noise pollution.
2. The Government of India framed and published Noise Pollution Control and Regulation Rules 1999. In 2002, there were certain amendments to the rule which let the State Governments to permit the use of loudspeakers for public address or cultural occasions from 10 pm-12 am for a maximum period of 15 days. The appellant, in C.A. No. of 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21851/03), raised an issue stating that the very purpose of the rules is defeated. This contention was rejected by the Kerala High Court. As aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Special Leave petition in The Supreme Court.
3. The special leave petition and the writ petition together raise many issues regarding noise pollution. Considering these two as public interest litigations, the Court, in its order dated 06/04/1998 amended the cause title in the writ petition by Shri Anil K Mittal to In Re: Noise Pollution Implementation of Laws for Restricting Voice of Loudspeakers and High-Volume Producing Sound System.
4. Senior Advocate Shri Jitender Sharma and Advocate Shri Pankaj Kalra were appointed as amicus curiae by the Court. Due to the unfortunate death of Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate Shri Sandeep Narayan took his place.
5. The Union of India and the Central Pollution Control Board did not oppose the writ petition and the leave petition. The Central Pollution Control Board gave valuable inputs in the form of authentic publications, research documents and other important papers. The Union of India, while supporting the petitioners, pointed out the difficulties in implementing the noise control laws.
6. There were many intervenors who sought for various conflicting reliefs. There were also many interlocutory applications throughout the hearing of this case.

Issues:

1. What is noise?
2. What are the adverse effects of noise?
3. Whether noise pollution runs in conflict with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
4. What relief can be allowed by way of directions issued in public interest?

Contentions:

This issue has been addressed from many angles. There were different contentions which enlarged the scope of this case.

Appealing contentions:

1. Noise is an “unwanted sound, a potential hazard to health and communication dumped into the environment with regard to the adverse effect it may have on unwilling ears”. The disturbance produced by the unwanted sounds in the environment is noise pollution.
2. Noise is nuisance and a serious health hazard. The temporary and permanent effects of noise pollution are wide. Noise pollution leads to stress, temporary or permanent hearing loss, interference in communication and speech, disturbance of sleep, annoyance, negative performance of individuals, physiological effects like contraction of blood vessels, low birth weight of unborn child and other clinical effects among others.
3. Noise pollution has its sources from many regular activities like industries, road traffic, aircraft noise, railroads, construction sites, noise in (residential) buildings and noise emitted from consumer products (vacuum cleaner, machines) etc.
4. Fireworks are prevalent in India. They are used for festivals, marriages, parties, New Years’ etc. It is a major source of air and noise pollution in the environment. They are widely used in the festival of Diwali. The Central Pollution Control Board had conducted a survey in Delhi on the sound levels during the festival of Diwali. It was observed that in the years from 1999-2002, the noise levels increased and crossed the limit on all Diwali days during these years. Hence, firecrackers are a main issue that needs to be tackled while reducing noise pollution.
5. Various foreign laws and statutes are referred to understand how noise pollution is dealt with in other countries. Indian statutes are also referred. The drawback found is that the Indian laws are quite evident but they need to be implemented efficiently. There needs to be proper awareness in order to ensure correct implementation of the current statutes.
6. People often take shelter behind Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. People claim that noise is their way of expression. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees Right to Life, surpasses the freedom in article 19. Freedom under Article 19 is not absolute.
7. Right to Life does not deal with mere survival and existence but also with the quality and dignity of life. A noisy environment is not a good life. Also, freedom of speech also includes freedom of silence. A person may choose to listen to something, may choose to not listen to something. In case of noise pollution, people are forced to listen to the noise. Hence, violating their freedom as well.

Defending contentions:

1. The different Interim Applications filed during the proceedings of this case contended that firecrackers are a part of custom in various festivals and occasions. Hence, putting restrictions on them would curtail the cultural rights.
2. It also contended that due such strict directives, the firecracker industry would not be able to survive. Hence, endangering the employment and life of so many employees and their families.
3. The Government contended what they feel are the difficulties in implementing the noise control policy.

• The rules are not comprehensive enough compared to the legislations of other countries.
• The authorities responsible for implementing these laws are not fully identified.
• There is a lack of technically qualified administrative staff who will act effectively.
• There is a lack of instruments measuring the sound levels.

Judgement:

The Court acknowledged the issue and gave a set of directives to be followed in order to regulate the noise pollution in the country.

1. Firecrackers should be evaluated on the basis of their chemical composition and not on the basis of their noise level. This method must be applied everywhere till the introduction of a better system.
2. There should be a complete ban on bursting of sound emitting crackers between 10 pm to 6 am.
3. Every firecracker manufacturer should mention details of the chemical composition of the firecracker on the box of crackers.
4. The noise level boundary in a public place, using loudspeakers should not exceed 10 dB.
5. No drum, trumpet etc to be used between 10 pm-6 am unless of emergencies.
6. Noise level of privately owned sound system should not exceed 5 dB.
7. Vehicle horns are not to be used from 10 pm-6 am in residential area (except in exceptional cases)
8. General awareness regarding hazardous effects of noise pollution must be created in the public.
9. State should make required provisions for confiscation of loud speakers, amplifiers etc.

Rule of Law:

The Court believed that excessive noise pollution would lead to a negative lifestyle, something opposing the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. As one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or not listen. When noise pollution occurs, the right to not listen as violated as people are forced to listen to it. Hence, by issuing certain directives, the Court has upheld the Rule of Law, ensuring strict regulation of the enforcement of the norms.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court, has identified noise pollution as a major pollutant in the environment, affecting the public interest. It understands that on one side there is the freedom of people to express themselves with firecrackers, loud speakers, amplifiers etc. and on the other hand there are the receivers of this noise who are exposed to hazardous conditions.

It has laid emphasis on the Right to Life of the receivers and protected their interest. Right to Freedom of Expression does not mean violating someone else’s freedom to not listen. One cannot express himself while putting others at a risk out of that expression.