Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
The questions involved in this appeal are that in a country having multiple
religions and numerous communities or sects, whether a particular community or sect
of that community can claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion?
Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and
loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or tranquility of neighbourhood should be
permitted? Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by
disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voiceamplifiers or beating of drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of
religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having
their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other
activities cannot be permitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the
neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful
atmosphere. A student preparing for his examination is entitled to concentrate on his
studies without their being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly,
old and infirm are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisure hours
without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. Aged, sick, people afflicted with
psychic disturbances as well as children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very
sensible to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.
Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules for noise pollution level are
framed which prescribe permissible limits of noise in residential, commercial,
industrial areas or silence zone. The question is whether the appellant can be
permitted to violate the said provisions and add to the noise pollution? In our view, to
claim such a right itself would be unjustifiable. In these days, the problem of noise
pollution has become more serious with the increasing trend towards industrialization,
urbanization and modernization and is having many evil effects including danger to
the health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of
efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability,
fatigue, gastro-intestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance
etc. This also affects animals alike. The extent of damage depends upon the duration
and the intensity of noise. Sometimes it leads to serious law and order problem.
Further, in an organized society, rights are related with duties towards others
including neighbours.
Keeping this background in mind, we would narrate the facts in brief for resolving the
controversy involved in the present case. This appeal by special leave is filed against
the judgment and order dated 19.4.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998. The appellant is the Church of God (Full
Gospel) (Church for short) located at K.K.R. Nagar, Madhavaram High Road,
194
Chennai. It has a prayer hall for the Pentecostal Christians and is provided with
musical instruments such as drum set, triple gango, guitar etc. Respondent No.1-KKR
Majestic Colony Welfare Association (Welfare Association for short) made a
complaint on 15.5.1996 to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board (hereinafter
referred to as the Board) stating therein that prayers in the Church were recited by
using loudspeakers, drums and other sound producing instruments which caused noise
pollution thereby disturbing and causing nuisance to the normal day life of the
residents of the said colony. Complaints were also made to the Superintendent of
Police and the Inspector of Police–respondents Nos 5 and 6 respectively. The Joint
Chief Environmental Engineer of the Boardrespondent No.4 herein on 23.5.1996
addressed a letter to respondent No.5, the Superintendent of Police, Chengai MGR
District (East), Chennai, to take action on the complaint. On 12.6.1996, respondent
No.4 again addressed a letter to respondent No.5 enclosing therewith the analysis
report of the Ambient noise level survey conducted in the vicinity of the appellants
church hall which disclosed that noise pollution was due to plying of vehicles on the
Madhavaram High Road. Respondent No.1 gave representations to various officials in
this regard. Thereafter respondent No.1Welfare Association filed Criminal O.P. No.61
of 1998 before the High Court of Madras for a direction to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to
take action on the basis of the letter issued by respondent No.4. In the High Court, it
was contended by learned counsel for the Church that the petition was filed with an
oblique motive in order to prevent a religious minority institution from pursuing its
religious activities and the Court cannot issue any direction to prevent the Church
from practicing its religious beliefs. It was also submitted that the noise pollution was
due to plying of vehicles and not due to use of loudspeakers etc.
The learned Judge referred to the decision of the High Court in Appa Rao, M.S. v.
Government of Tamil Nadu & Another (1995-1 L.W. (Vol.115) 319) where certain
guidelines have been laid down for controlling the noise pollution. In Appa Raos case,
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court after considering the contentions raised
by the parties and decisions cited therein and also to the provisions of Section 41 and
71(a) of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and Section 10 of the Madras Town
Nuisance Act, 1989 has issued directions to the Government for controlling the noise
pollution and for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers. In the said case, the Court
has observed that the grievances of the petitioners, who have complained with regard
to the noise pollution were fully justified and the authorities concerned were turning
or made to turn by the higher powers a Nelsons eye to the violation of rules and
regulations in these matters. The Court also considered copy of an article which
appeared in the August, 1982 Issue of Science Today and a copy of the ICMR
Bulletin of July, 1979 containing a Study on Noise Pollution in South India wherein it
is pointed out that noise pollution will lead to serious nervous disorders, emotional
tension leading to high blood-pressure, cardiovascular diseases, increase in
195
cholesterol level resulting in heart attacks and strokes and even damage to foetus. The
learned Single Judge also referred to other decisions and directed respondent Nos.5
and 6 to follow the guidelines issued in Appa Raos case (Supra) and to take necessary
steps to bring down the noise level to the permitted extent by taking action against the
vehicles which make noise and also by making the Church to keep their speakers at a
lower level. He further held that the Survey report submitted by the Board would go
to show that the Church was not the sole contributor of the noise and it appeared that
the interference of noise was also due to plying of vehicles. The learned Judge pointed
out that there was nothing of malice and malicious wish to cause any hindrance to the
free practice of religious faith of the Church and if the noise created by the Church
exceeds the permissible decibels then it has to be abated. Aggrieved by the said order,
this appeal is filed by the Church.
Mr. G. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant contended
that the High Court has failed to note that the two survey reports of the Pollution
Control Board clearly attributed the noise pollution in the area in question to the
vehicular traffic and not to any of the activities of the appellant-Church and, therefore,
direction issued in respect of controlling the noise ought not to have been extended in
respect of the appellant-Church; that the High Court has overlooked that the right to
profess and practice Christianity is protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India which cannot be dislodged by directing the authorities to have a
check on the appellant-Church; and that the judgment relied upon by the High Court
in Appa Raos case (Supra) did not empower the authorities to interfere with the
religious practices of any community.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the
appellant-Church has deliberately tried to give religious colour to this cause of action
as respondent no.1 – Welfare Association is consisting of members belonging to all
religions as found by the High Court. It is contended that even if the contention of the
appellant-Churchthat the noise created by it is within the prescribed limitis taken as it
is, the order passed by the High Court will not in any way prejudice the right of
religious practice of appellant because the order of the High Court is only with regard
to reducing the noise pollution in that area. It is further contended that the High Court
can pass orders to protect and preserve a very fundamental right of citizen under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the judgment of Calcutta
High Court in Om Birangana Religious Society v. The State and others [CWN 1995-
96 (Vol.100) 617] wherein the Court dealt with a similar matter. The questions posed
by the Court for consideration werewhether the public are captive audience or listener
when permission is given for using loud-speakers in public and the person who is
otherwise unwilling to bear the sound and/or the music or the communication made
by the loud-speakers, but he is compelled to tolerate all these things against his will
196
and health? Does it concern simply a law and order situation? Does it not generate
sound pollution? Does it not affect the other known rights of a citizen? Even if a
citizen is ill and even if such a sound may create adverse effect on his physical and
mental condition, yet he is made a captive audience to listen. The High Court held
that:
It cannot be said that the religious teachers or the spiritual leaders who had laid down
these tenets, had any way desired the use of microphones as a means of performance
of religion. Undoubtedly, one can practice, profess and propagate religion, as
guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution but that is not an absolute right.
The provision of Article 25 is subject to the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. On true and proper construction of the provision of Article 25(1), read
with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot be said that a citizen should be
coerced to hear any thing which he does not like or which he does not require.
Thereafter, the High Court laid down certain guidelines for the Pollution Control
Board for grant of permission to use loudspeakers and to maintain noise level in West
Bengal. In our view, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
deserves to be rejected because the direction given by the learned Judge to the
authorities is only to follow the guidelines laid down in Appa Raos case decided by
the Division Bench of the same High Court on the basis of the Madras City Police
Act, 1888 and the Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889. It is also in conformity with the
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed by the Central
Government under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read
with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
In the present case, the contention with regard to the rights under Article 25 or Article
26 of the Constitution which are subject to public order, morality and health are not
required to be dealt with in detail mainly because as stated earlier no religion
prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice
amplifiers or by beating of drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not
adversely affect the rights of others including that of being not disturbed in their
activities. We would only refer to some observations made by the Constitution Bench
of this Court qua rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution in Acharya
Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Others v. The State of
Gujarat & Others [(1975) 1 SCC 11]. After considering the various contentions, the
Court observed that no rights in an organized society can be absolute. Enjoyment of
one’s rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others. Where in a
free play of social forces it is not possible to bring about a voluntary harmony, the
State has to step in to set right the imbalance between competing interests. The Court
also observed that a particular fundamental right cannot exist in isolation in a watertight compartment. One Fundamental Right of a person may have to co-exist in
197
harmony with the exercise of another Fundamental Right by others also with
reasonable and valid exercise of power by the State in the light of the Directive
Principles in the interests of social welfare as a whole. Further, it is to be stated that
because of urbanization or industrialization the noise pollution may in some area of a
city/town might be exceeding permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that
would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums
or by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and,
therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of
loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act,
1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required
to be enforced . We would mention that even though the Rules are unambiguous,
there is lack of awareness among the citizens as well as the Implementation
Authorities about the Rules or its duty to implement the same. Noise polluting
activities which are rampant and yet for one reason or the other, the aforesaid Rules or
the rules framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced. Hence, the High
Court has rightly directed implementation of the same. In the result, the appeal is
dismissed.
