Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI: These two matters before us raise certain issues of far-reaching
implications in day-to-day life of the people in India relatable to noise pollution vis-a-vis right
to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in its wide sweep by the
Constitutional courts of the country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but
several intervenors and interlocutory applications enhanced the scope of hearing and the cases
were heard in a very wide perspective centering around Article 21 of the Constitution. Several
associated and incidental issues have also been gone into. Facts in W.P. No.72/98
- CWP No. 72/98 is filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession moving the
Court pro bono publico. The immediate provocation for filing the petition was that a 13 year
old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of January 3, 1998). Her cries for help
sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker in the neighbourhood.
The victim girl, later in the evening, set herself ablaze and died of 100% burn injuries. The
petition complains of noise created by the use of the loudspeakers being used in religious
performances or singing bhajans and the like in busy commercial localities on the days of
weekly offs. Best quality hi-fi audio systems are used. Open space, meant for use by the
schools in the locality, is let out for use in marriage functions and parties wherein merry
making goes on with hi-fi amplifiers and loudspeakers without any regard to timings. Modern
residents of the locality organize terrace parties for socializing and use high capacity stereo
systems in abundance. These are a few instances of noise pollution generated much to the
chagrin of students taking examinations who find it utterly difficult to concentrate on studies
before and during examinations. The noise polluters have no regard for the inconvenience and
discomfort of the people in the vicinity. Noise pollution has had its victims in the past and
continues to have victims today as well. The petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of
this Court so that there may not be victims of noise pollution in future. The principal prayer is
that the existing laws for restricting the use of loudspeakers and other high volume noise
producing audio-video systems, be directed to be rigorously enforced. - The Government of India framed and published Noise Pollution Control and
Regulation Rules, 1999. On 11.10.2002 the Government of India brought in an amendment in
the Rules. The amendment empowered the State Government to permit use of loudspeaker or
public address system during night hours (between 10 pm and 12 pm mid-night) on or during
the cultural or religious occasions for a limited period not exceeding 15 days. Vires of this
amendment were put in issue by the appellant submitting that the provision is not
accompanied by any guidelines and is capable of being misused to such an extent that the
whole purpose behind enacting the Rules itself may be defeated. The High Court of Kerala
found the petition devoid of any merit and directed the petition to be dismissed. Feeling
aggrieved, this petition has been filed by special leave.
181 - The special leave petition and, in particular, the writ petition raise issues of wide
ranging dimensions relating to noise pollution and the implications thereof. Taking
cognizance of the matters as public interest litigation, the Court vide its order dated 6.4.98,
directed the cause title of the petition filed by Shri Anil Kumar Mittal to be amended as “In
re. Noise Pollution Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Voice of Loudspeakers and
High Volume Producing Sound System”. - The Union of India and the Central Pollution Control Board have not opposed the
prayer made in the writ petition and the appeal and have rather supported the writ petitioner.
Valuable inputs have been provided by the Central Pollution Control Board in the form of
pleadings, authentic publications, research documents and other papers. The Union of India,
while not opposing the relief sought for by the petitioner, has pointed out several practical
difficulties in completely regulating and where necessary, eliminating noise pollution. - Though the sweep of hearing in these matters has been very wide, the principal thrust
of the writ petitioner and the learned Amicus has been directed towards noise created by
firecrackers, loudspeakers used by political parties, at religious places and on religious and
social occasions or festivals. Hindu Bokta Jana Sabai, Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces
Manufacturers Association, Universal Society Performance, All India Federation of
Fireworks Association, Indian Fireworks Manufacturers Association and some individuals
have sought for interventions. It is not necessary to notice the contents of the intervention
applications in detail. Suffice it to say that the reliefs sought for in the applications are
conflicting. Some of the intervenors have sought for:-
(i) noise created by horns of engines, pressure horns in automobiles, loudspeakers,
denting, painting of cars, particularly, in residential areas and from unauthorized premises
being prohibited;
(ii) use of loudspeakers in religious places such as temples, mosque, churches,
gurudwaras and other places being discontinued or at least regulated;
(iii) firecrackers burst during Diwali festival and on other occasions for fun or merry
making being prohibited completely, if the noise created exceeds certain decibels and being
so regulated as to prevent bursting during night hours.
Other set of intervenors seeks such like reliefs:-
(i) granting exemption in favour of bursting of firecrackers on or during festivals without
regard to the limit of time as such bursting of firecrackers is associated with the performance
of ceremonies relating to religion or social occasions;
(ii) laying down mechanism for regulating the very manufacturing of firecrackers so that
such firecrackers as unreasonably enhance noise pollution may be kept away from entering
the markets and playing into the hands of the people. - Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all persons. It is
well settled by repeated pronouncements of this Court as also the High Courts that right to life
enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence. It guarantees a right of persons to
life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life which go to make a
person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm and there
182
is no reason why the life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone
who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the
noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own
premises which would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others.
Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life
judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance. How and when a nuisance created by
noise becomes actionable has to be answered by reference to its degree and the surrounding
circumstances, the place and the time. - Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading freedom of
speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression
are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right
to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While
one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be
compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into
the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural aggression. If anyone increases his
volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily
expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the
person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free
life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)a cannot be pressed into service for defeating the
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this aspect. Two
decisions in this regard delivered by High Courts have been brought to our notice wherein the
right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions are Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand
Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [AIR (2001) Del. 455 (DB)] and P.A.
Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam [AIR (1993) Ker 1]. We have carefully gone
through the reasoning adopted in the two decisions and the principle of law laid down therein,
in particular, the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution. We find ourselves in entire
agreement therewith. - The present cases provide an opportunity for examining several questions, such as
what is noise? What are its adverse effects? Whether noise pollution runs in conflict with the
fundamental rights of the people? And what relief can be allowed by way of directions issued
in public interest?
STATUTORY LAWS IN INDIA - Not that the Legislature and the Executive in India are completely unmindful of the
menace of noise pollution. Laws have been enacted and the Rules have been framed by the
Executive for carrying on the purposes of the legislation. The real issue is with the
implementation of the laws. What is needed is the will to implement the laws. It would be
useful to have a brief resume of some of the laws which are already available on the Statute
Book. Treatment of the problem of noise pollution can be dealt under the Law of Crimes and
Civil Law. Civil law can be divided under two heads (i) The Law of Torts (ii) The General
Civil Law. The cases regarding noise have not come before the law courts in large quantity.
The reason behind this is that many people in India did not consider noise as a sort of
pollution and they are not very much conscious about the evil consequences of noise
183
pollution. The level of noise pollution is relative and depends upon a person and a particular
place. The law will not take care of a super sensitive person but the standard is of an average
and rational human being in the society.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - In order to curb the growing problem of noise pollution, the Government of India has
enacted the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Prior to the enactment of
these rules noise pollution was not being dealt specifically by a particular Act.
“Whereas the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various
sources, inter-alia, industrial activity, construction activity, generator sets,
loudspeakers, public address systems, music systems, vehicular horns and other
mechanical devices, have deleterious effects on human health and the psychological
well being of the people; it is considered necessary to regulate and control noise
producing and generating sources with the objective of maintaining the ambient air
quality standard in respect of noise;” - The main provisions of the noise rules are as under:
- The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial,
residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise
standards for different areas. - The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones
has been specified for in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. - The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including
noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels
do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules. - An area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational
institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these
rules. - A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after
obtaining written permission from the authority and the same shall not be used at
night i.e. between 10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m. - A person found violating the provisions as to the maximum noise permissible
in any particular area shall be liable to be punished for it as per the provisions of these
rules and any other law in force.
Indian Penal Code
92-93. Noise pollution can be dealt under Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal
Code, as a public nuisance. Under Section 268 of this Code, it is mentioned that ‘A person is
guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes
any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or the people in general who dwell or
occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or
annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is
not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.’ Sections 290 and
291 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the punishment for public nuisance.
184
Criminal Procedure Code - Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the magistrate has the
power to make conditional order requiring The Factories Act, 1948.
The Factories Act - The Factories Act does not contain any specific provision for noise control. However,
under the Third Schedule Sections 89 and 90 of the Act, ‘noise induced hearing loss’, is
mentioned as a notifiable disease. Under section 89 of the Act, any medical practitioner who
detects any notifiable disease, including noise-induced hearing loss, in a worker, has to report
the case to the Chief Inspector of Factories, along with all other relevant information. Failure
to do so is a punishable offence. - Similarly, under the Model Rules, limits for noise exposure for work zone area has
been prescribed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and and rules framed thereunder - Rules 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, deal with reduction of
noise.
Rule 119. Horns
(1) On and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the
Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, every motor vehicle including
construction equipment vehicle and agricultural tractor manufactured shall be fitted
with an electric horn or other devices conforming to the requirements of IS:
1884?1992, specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards for use by the driver of the
vehicle and capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or
position of the vehicle: Provided that on and from 1st January, 2003, the horn
installation shall be as per AIS-014 specifications, as may be amended from time to
time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards specifications are
notified.
(2) Noise standards – No motor vehicle shall be fitted with any multi-toned horn
giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound-producing device
giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.
Rule 120. Silencers
(1) Every motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with a device
(hereinafter referred to as a silencer) which by means of an expansion chamber or
otherwise reduces as far as practicable, the noise that would otherwise be made by
the escape of exhaust gases from the engine.
(2) Noise standards. Every motor vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to
conform to noise standards specified in Part E of the Schedule VI to the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986, when tested as per IS: 3028-1998, as amended from time to
time.
Law of Torts - Quietness and freedom from noise are indispensable to the full and free enjoyment
of a dwelling-house. No proprietor has an absolute right to create noises upon his own
185
land, because any right which the law gives is qualified by the condition that it must
not be exercised to the nuisance of his neighbours or of the public. Noise will create
an actionable nuisance only if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of life,
judged by ordinary, plain and simple notions, and having regard to the locality; the
question being one of degree in each case.
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Noise was included in the definition of air pollutant in Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act in 1981. Thus, the provisions of the Air Act, became
applicable in respect of noise pollution, also.
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - In the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, although there is no specific provision to
deal with noise pollution, the Act confers powers on Government of India to take measures to
deal with various types of pollution including noise pollution.
Fireworks
The Explosives Act, 1884 regulates manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import
& export of explosives. Firecrackers are governed by this Statute. Rule 87 of the Explosives
Rule, 1983 prohibits manufacture of any explosive at any place, except in factory or premises
licensed under the Rules. In India there is no separate Act that regulates the manufacture,
possession, use, sale, manufacture and transactions in firecrackers. All this is regulated by
The Explosives Act, 1884. The Noise that is produced by these fireworks is regulated by the
Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,
2000.
JUDICIAL OPINION IN INDIA - In Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal v. The State, [AIR 1958 Punj 11],
accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 290 of Indian Penal Code 1860
and was fined Rs. 50 for causing noise and emitting smoke and vibrations by operating of
heavy machinery in the residential area. The orders of the trial court was upheld by the
District Magistrate in appeal. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana also upheld the decision
of the courts below and dismissed the revision petition. In the case of Bhuban Ram v.
Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas [AIR 1919 Calcutta 539], it was held that working of a paddy
husking machine at night causes nuisance by noise and the occupier was held liable to be
punished under Section 290 IPC. In Ivour Heyden v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1984 Cri LJ
(NOC) 16], the High Court of Andhra Pradesh excused the act of playing radio loudly on the
ground that it was a trivial act. Careful reading of Section 95 of IPC shows that only that harm
is excused which is not expected to be complained by the person of ordinary temper and
sense. - In Rabin Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, [AIR 1985 Cal. 222] the use of air
horns was prohibited by the court to prevent noise pollution. The Court observed:
It is found that the atmosphere and the environment is very much polluted from
indiscriminating noise emitted from different quarters and on research it was found
that persons who are staying near the Airport, are becoming victim of various
186
ailments. Such persons even become victim of mental disease. On such research it
was also found that workers in various factories even become deaf and hard of
hearing. It was further found on such research that as a result of this excessive noise
pollution, people suffer from loss of appetite, depression, mental restlessness and
insomnia. People also suffer from excessive blood pressure and heart trouble. It is not
necessary to go into the question about direct effect of such noise pollution because
of indiscriminate and illegal use of such electric and air horn as it is an admitted
position that the same is injurious to health and amongst different causes of
environmental pollution, sound pollution is one which is of grave concern.” - In the case of People United for better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal
[AIR 1993 Cal. 215] the Calcutta High Court observed:
In a developing country there shall have to be developments, but that
development shall have to be in closest possible harmony with the environment, as
otherwise there would be development but no environment, which would result in
total devastation, though, however, may not be felt in present but at some future point
of time, but then it would be too late in the day, however, to control and improve the
environment. In fact, there should be a proper balance between the protection of
environment and the development process. The society shall have to prosper, but not
at the cost of the environment and in similar vein, the environment shall have to be
protected but not at the cost of the development of the society and as such a balance
has to be found out and administrative actions ought to proceed accordingly. - In Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner of police, Calcutta
[AIR 1998 Cal. 121] it has been held
Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India does not guarantee the fundamental
right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution or which takes away that
community’s safety, health and peace. A citizen or people cannot be made a captive
listener to hear the tremendous sounds caused by bursting out from noisy fireworks.
It may give pleasure to one or two persons who burst it but others have to be a
captive listener whose fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(10(a) and
other provisions of the Constitution are taken away, suspended and made
meaningless. Under Art. 19(1)(a), read with Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the
citizens have a right of decent environment and they have a right to live peacefully,
right to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which are all necessary under Art.
21 of the Constitution.”(Headnote) - The Supreme Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic
Colony Welfare Assn. [(2000) 7 SCC 282] held that the Court may issue directions in respect
of controlling noise pollution even if such noise was a direct result of and was connected with
religious activities. It was further held:-
Undisputedly, no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by
disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice
amplifiers 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
187
their sleep in the early hours or during daytime 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,
the old and the 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 (sic sensitive) 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 in itself would be unjustifiable. In these days, the problem of noise
pollution has become more serious with the increasing trend towards
industrialisation, urbanization and modernisation and is having many evil effects
including danger to health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication,
loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression,
irritability, fatigue, gastrointestinal 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……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 Nuisances Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced. - We have referred to a few, not all available judgments. Suffice is to observe that
Indian Judicial opinion has been uniform in recognizing right to live in freedom from noise
pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution and noise
pollution beyond permissible limits as an in-road on that right. We agree with and record our
approval of the view taken and the opinion expressed by the several High Courts in the
decisions referred to hereinabove.
INTERIM ORDERS - During the course of the hearing of this case the Court had passed several interim
orders keeping in mind the importance of the issue. - The interim order dated 27/09/2001 deserves to be mentioned in particular, which
directed as under:
188
(1) The Union Government, the Union Territories as well as all the State
Governments shall take steps to strictly comply with Notification No. G.S.R. 682(E)
dated October 05, 1999 whereby the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 framed
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 were amended. They shall in particular
comply with amended Rule 89 of the said Rules, which reads as follows:
“89. Noise standards for fire-crackers A.
(i) The manufacture, sale or use of firecrackers generating noise level
exceeding 125 dB(AI) or 145 dB( C)pk at 4 meters distance from the point of
bursting shall be prohibited.
(ii) For individual fire-cracker constituting the series (joined fire-crackers),
the above mentioned limit be reduced by 5 log 10(N) dB, where N = number of
crackers joined together.
(2) The use of fireworks or fire-crackers shall not be permitted except between
6.00 a.m. and 10.00p.m. No firework or firecracker shall be allowed between 10.00
p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
(3) Firecrackers shall not be used at any time in silence zones, as defined in S.O.
1046(E) issued on 22.11.2000 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In the
said Notification Silence Zone has been defined as:
“Silence Zone is an area comprising not less than 100 meters around
hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area
which is declared as such by the competent authority.”
(4) The State Education Resource Centres in all the States and the Union
Territories as well as the management/principals of schools in all the States and
Union Territories shall take appropriate steps to educate students about the ill effects
of air and noise pollution and appraise them of directions (1) to (3) above.
These interim directions were also directed to be given wide publicity both by electronic
and print media. It was said that Doordarshan and other television channels shall give
publicity to these directions, at least once every day during prime time, during the fortnight
before Dussehra and Diwali. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was asked to
bring these directions to the notice of the general public through appropriate advertisements,
issued in the newspapers. The All India Radio was asked to broadcast these directions on
prime time on FM and other frequencies for information of the general public. - Due to the imposition of the restrictions on the bursting of firecrackers, several
Interim Applications came to be filed before the Court. The Court vide its interim order dated
10.9.2003 stated:
Through the I.A.s filed in this Court the following two suggestions deserve
notice.
Firstly, it is submitted that certain local festivals and celebrations are
accompanied customarily by bursting of firecrackers which is at times at such hours
as is not permissible under the order of this Court dated 27.9.2001. Secondly, it is
189
pointed out that the industry of fireworks may face serious difficulty, even partial
closure, on account of the directions made by this Court.
We have grave doubts if the above said considerations can come in the way of
the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the citizens
and people of India to live in peace and comfort, in an atmosphere free from
pollution of any kind, such as one caused by noise and foul/poisonous gases.
However still, without expressing any final opinion on the pleas advanced, we allow
the parties adversely affected the liberty to make representation to their respective
State Governments and the State Governments may, in their turn, if satisfied of the
genuineness of the representation made, invite the attention of the Govt. of India, to
the suggestions made. - We are happy to note that the initial reluctance to abide by the interim directions
made by this Court as displayed by the subsequent interlocutory applications soon gave way
to compliance. By and large the interim directions made by the Court were observed in
compliance. Police and civil administration remained alert during Diwali Festival to see that
the directions made by the Court were complied with. Resident Welfare Associations and
school children gave a very encouraging response who voluntarily desisted from bursting
firecrackers in prohibited hours of night and also bursting such firecrackers as produce high
level noise.
DIFFICULTY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL
METHODOLOGY IN INDIA - India has passed through the stage of being characterised as a developing country
and is ready to enter and stand in the line of developed countries. Yet, the issue of noise
pollution in India has not been taken so far with that seriousness as it ought to have been.
Firstly, as we have stated earlier, there is a lack of will on the part of the Executive to
implement the laws. This has contributed to lack of infrastructure essential for attaining the
enforcement of laws. Secondly, there is lack of requisite awareness on the part of the citizens.
The deleterious effects of noise pollution are not well known to the people and are not
immediately perceptible. People generally accept noise pollution as a part of life, a necessary
consequence of progress and prosperity. - The problems that are being faced in controlling noise pollution are:-
- The Statutes and the Rules framed thereunder are not comprehensive enough so as
to deal with all the problems and issues related to noise pollution. This impression of ours
stands reaffirmed on a comparative reading of legislation in India with these in other
countries of the world to which we have referred to briefly earlier in this judgment. - The authorities responsible for implementing the laws are not yet fully identified.
Those which have been designated, do not seem to be specialised in the task of regulating
noise pollution. There is dearth of necessary personnel technically qualified to act
effectively. What is needed is a combination of technically qualified and administratively
competent personnel with the requisite desire and dedication for implementation of the
laws.
190 - There is lack of proper gadgets and equipments and other infrastructure such as
labs for measuring the noise levels. Due to the shortage of the instruments needed for the
purpose of measuring sound, the policemen who are on the job usually end up measuring
sound with their ears itself and not with the use of technical instruments.
DIRECTIONS - It is hereby directed as under:
I. Firecrackers - On a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of evaluating
firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other where the firecrackers shall be
evaluated on the basis of chemical composition, we feel that the latter method is more
practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until
replaced by a better system. - The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake necessary research activity
for the purpose and come out with the chemical formulae for each type or category or
class of firecrackers. The DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as well as the
maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers. - The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two categories- (i)
Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii) Colour/light emitting firecrackers. - There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers between 10
pm and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to time on bursting of
colour/light emitting firecrackers. - Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker mention details of its
chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as laid down by DOE. In case of a
failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention the details or in cases where the
contents of the box do not match the chemical formulae as stated on the box, the
manufacturer may be held liable. - Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured bearing higher noise
levels subject to the following conditions: (i) The manufacturer should be permitted to do
so only when he has an export order with him and not otherwise;(ii) The noise levels for
these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards prescribed in the country to
which they are intended to be exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers
should have a different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) They
must carry a declaration printed thereon something like ‘not for sale in India’ or ‘only for
export to country AB’ and so on.
II. Loudspeakers - The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public
address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above
the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower.
191 - No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or sound any
instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between 10. 00 p.m. and 6.a.m.) except in
public emergencies. - The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall not exceed by
more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it
is used, at the boundary of the private place.
III. Vehicular Noise
No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential
area except in exceptional circumstances.
IV. Awareness - There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of
noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text-books which teach civic sense
to the children and youth at the initial/early level of education. Special talks and lectures
be organised in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the
children and younger generation in preventing it. Police and civil administration should
be trained to understand the various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on the
subject. - The State must play an active role in this process. Resident Welfare Associations,
service Clubs and Societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as a part of their
projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local administration. - Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and
ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, need to be carried out. - The above said guidelines are issued in exercise of power conferred on this
Court under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. These would remain in
force until modified by this Court or superseded by an appropriate legislation.
V. Generally - The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers,
amplifiers and such other equipments as are found to be creating noise beyond the
permissible limits. - Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 makes
provision for specifying ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different
areas/zones, categorization of the areas for the purpose of implementation of noise
standards, authorizing the authorities for enforcement and achievement of laid down
standards. The Central Government/State Governments shall take steps for laying down
such standards and notifying the authorities where it has not already been done. - Though, the matters are closed consistently with the directions as above issued in
public interest, there will be liberty of seeking further directions as and when required and in
particular in the event of any difficulty arising in implementing the directions. Before parting,
we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of valuable assistance rendered by
Shri Jitendra Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Narain, Advocate (and
192
earlier by late Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate) who highlighted several relevant aspects of the
issues before us and also helped in formulating the guidelines issued as above.
