Noise Pollution, Loudspeakers, and the Law
By Gajanan Khergamker
In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court recently issued a scathing critique of persistent noise pollution caused by loudspeakers in religious places. The ruling, while ensuring constitutional balance, highlighted the dismal failure of enforcement agencies to uphold public interest. Noise, a seemingly trivial concern, was once again recognised as a potent disruptor of peace and public health, warranting stringent legal and judicial action.
At the heart of the matter lay a petition filed by residents of Nehru Nagar, Kurla East, who were fed up with the daily disruptions caused by loudspeakers blaring beyond permissible limits, particularly during early morning and late-night hours. Despite repeated complaints to the authorities, including the police and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), no action was taken. The residents were compelled to seek judicial intervention to protect their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
 |
| Image for representational purpose only |
The Bombay High Court minced no words in underscoring that no religion sanctions the use of loudspeakers to disturb others. The Court drew on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association & Ors., observing:
"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."
This observation resonated with the Court’s broader stance: rights are not absolute, and freedom of religion cannot be exercised at the expense of another's fundamental right to live in peace.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, prescribe strict limits on permissible noise levels in residential areas—55 decibels during the day and 45 decibels at night. Crucially, the Court clarified that these limits apply cumulatively. This means that the total noise level from all sources in the vicinity must not exceed these thresholds, effectively ruling out arguments that each loudspeaker operates within permissible limits individually.
The judgment emphasised:
"The law does not permit that, every individual loudspeaker will emit 55 or 45 decibels of noise aggregating to more than what is prescribed under the said Rules. That would amount to frustrating the intention of the Legislature."
The Court castigated the police and state authorities for their lackadaisical approach, which allowed violators to operate with impunity. The petitioners alleged that their complaints were often dismissed under the pretext of religious sensitivity. Such inaction emboldened the offenders, resulting in unchecked noise pollution.
The Court held that the police were bound to act under Sections 38, 70, 136, and 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and their inaction was inexcusable. The judgment sternly remarked:
"In a democratic State, there cannot be a situation that, a person or group of persons would say that, it will not follow or adhere to the law of the land and the law enforcers would be meek or silent spectators to it."
The Court was unflinching in calling for accountability, urging the authorities to act decisively against offenders, irrespective of their religious affiliations.
In an effort to enforce compliance, the Court issued detailed directives:
1. Mandatory Decibel Monitoring: All sound-emitting devices, including loudspeakers, must have in-built mechanisms to control noise levels. The police were advised to use mobile decibel-measuring applications to monitor compliance.
2. Graduated Penalties: Violators must first be cautioned, followed by fines for repeated offences. Persistent non-compliance would warrant the seizure of equipment under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. Anonymous Complaints: To prevent complainants from being targeted, the police were directed to act on complaints without disclosing the complainant’s identity.
The Court also suggested that permissions for loudspeaker use must be rigorously scrutinised, with violations resulting in immediate revocation.
The judgment acknowledged the unique challenges of enforcing noise pollution laws in a diverse and vibrant society like India. It reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in Noise Pollution (V) In Re, emphasising that:
"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 could travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others."
By categorically stating that the use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion, the Court dismissed claims of religious infringement. The verdict affirms the need for a harmonious coexistence that respects individual rights alongside religious freedoms.
This judgment, while progressive, also underscores systemic inefficiencies. The absence of adequate decibel meters and the casual attitude of enforcement agencies have undermined noise pollution laws for years. The Court lamented this state of affairs, noting that:
"The approach of the State Government has been very casual. The result of this gross delay in procuring meters is that during two important festivals of Dahi Handi and Ganapati of the year 2016, adequate number of meters will not be available with the police machinery. This inaction has to be deprecated."
The Bombay High Court’s verdict is a clarion call for action. It asserts that public health and order cannot be sacrificed at the altar of religious sensitivities or administrative inertia. As the judgment eloquently put it:
"By denying such permissions, rights under Article 19 or 25 of the Constitution of India are not at all infringed. Use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion."
