CASES ON NOISE POLLUTION

1. Om Birangana Religious Scociety v. The State, (1996 100 CWN 617 ) (Bhagabati Prosod Banarjee J.)
Constitution of India - Arts. 19 (1) (a) and 25
Ban on use of Microphones / Loudspeakers at Religious Places and Congregation.

                   A religious organization, Om Birangana Religious Society filed the writ petition requesting the Court that the respondents should not interfere with right of user of microphones, loud speakers, and for amplifying human voice and amplifying other sounds while playing daily pujas and other religious activities and displace of religious songs. The petitioner prayed for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, to accord necessary permission in favour of the said society in terms of Section 34 of the Police Act, 1963 (West Bengal Amendment).

                    The petitioner contended that the microphones are required to society during performance of puja but the Sub-Divisional officer, Ghatal directed the petitioner not use any microphone. The petitioner also filed an application before the Sub- Divisional Officer for the same. The petitioner argued that Art. 25 of the Constitution provides the right to propagate religion.

                    The Court observed that Art. 25 is not absolute. Art. 25 (1) is subject to the provisions 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, no authority would grant permission to use microphones without having any regard to the rights of the fellow citizens or the people of the area. In a religious place or congregation, the use of microphones should be limited to the persons or the followers or the disciples so that they may hear and know; they may flow and understand what is meant for them. No person or organization can not be allowed to use microphones at a higher noise level or without any volume control. It also held that the power of the Police, District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officers to grant restrictions and conditions which are necessary in order to protect and preserve a very fundamental right of citizen under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The Court imposed nine restrictions on using microphones and loud speakers. The Court also held that the volume and noise level should be approved by the State Pollution Board and same should be enforced by the police and the administration.

2. Chairman, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, Guruvayur v. Superintend of Police, (AIR 1998 Ker. 122) (U.P. Singh, S. Sankarasubban, JJ.)

Use of Horn type Loud Speakers to control Pilgrims in and around the Temple

The Guruvayur temple in Kerala attracts many devotees and pilgrims through out the year. During Sabrimala Season, approximately from November to the end of January, there is a continuous flow of devotees. The managing committee decided to install loud speakers in the temple premises in order to control crowd and also issue directions to pilgrims with respect to the darshan in the temple. During the festival season as well as sabrimala season the authorities used to install loud speakers in a radius of nearby one km. looking into crowd of the pilgrims. The respondents, the Police officers directed the Managing committee to remove horn type speakers otherwise they threatened the committee that the loud speakers will be removed. Apprehending this, the managing committee of the temple approached the High Court of Kerala to issue Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from removing the loudspeakers. The respondents argued that the horn type loud speakers are being used in the temple caused irreparable damages to ears and that these speakers were installed without obtaining sanction from the competent authorities. Even a complaint also has been lodged by the District Secretary of Sound Service Association requesting for taking action against the use of horn type loud speakers outside the temple.
                 The report submitted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board reveals that the use of horn type loudspeaker is preferable to public speeches especially in open spaces. A cone type loud speaker is able to faithfully reproduce sound in a very wide range of frequencies. In other words it can produce very shrill to very high bass sounds. The efficiency of a horn-type loud speaker on the other hand, is limited human frequencies.

                The Court on the basis report and the arguments of the both sides held that there cannot be noise pollution by using horn-type loudspeakers so far the temples premises are concerned. The Court allowed the Guruvayur Devaswom to use horn-type amplifiers in and around the temple premises.

3. Burrabazar Fire Workers Dealers Association v. Commissoner of Police, Calcutta AIR 1998 Cal. 121 (Bhugabati Prosod Bnarjee and Asis Baran Mukherjee,JJ)
Constitution of India - Art. 19(1) (g)
Water Pollution (Prevention and control) Act, Sec- 4

Imposition of Ban on Manufacture of Noisy of Fire works

Two Writ Petitions jointly decided as the same questions of fact and the law involved. Mohan fire Workers and Chandan Golcha approached the Court with a prayer for stay of the operation of a memo as well as police notification and to permit or allow manufacture, sell, dealing or trading and storing of fire works without any restriction and also permit or allow bursting of fire works/of less than 90 DB at 5 kms. distance from the site of bursting without any restriction whatever. The second writ petitioner is the Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers' Association alleged that the imposition of ban on certain items of noisy fire works violates the fundamental rights of dealers to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

          The petitioner contended that neither Pollution Control Board nor the Commissioner of Police have any authority or jurisdiction under the law to impose such a restriction or condition. However, the ban was issued pursuant to a direction issued by the same High Court in Biragana Religious Society v. State (1996 100 CWN 671) The petitioners submitted to the Court that the authorities have failed to understand the difference between 'ambient noise level' and 'impulsive noise level'.

           The respondents argued that in any State in which a state Pollution Control Board is constituted under section 4 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and control) Act. Such a State Board shall be deemed to be constituted under the section 5 under Air Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act. Accordingly that State Pollution Control Board shall exercise and perform the functions of the State Board for the prevention and control under this Act. In present case the Board was constituted in the same manner. With regard to ambient and impulsive noise, the respondents argued that the impulsive noise is more tolerable and harmful than ambient noise. During the festivals viz., Deepawali and Kali Puja the use of crackers no longer remains an impulsive sound but merges and becomes an ambient and continuous sound at a high pitch hour after hour and the expression of ambient noise and impulsive noise levels looses its character and significance.

            The Court after considering the arguments of the both the parties held that 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 communities' safety, health and peace.

             The Court further held that there is no inherent or fundamental right to a citizen to manufacture, sell and deal with fire works which will create sound beyond permissible limit and which will generate pollution which would endanger the health and public order. Moreover, the order of the Police Commissioner banned only few fire works which creates noise beyond permissible limit. The Court further observed that in India there is no effective and elaborate law to control the noise creators. But under Art. 19 (1) (a) read with Art. 21, the citizens have a right to leisure which is all necessary ingredients of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed the West Bengal Pollution Control Board take a decision on fixing the sound level of fire works after considering all aspects of the matter and giving the hearing to the petitioners.

4. Rabin Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1985 Cal. 222 (Bhagabati Prasad Barjee J.)
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- Section 112
Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940- Rule 114 (d)

Prohibition on Use of Electric and Air horns by Transport Vehicles a Rabin Mukherjee and others filed this Writ Petition for their own protection of rights and also in public interest. They alleged that noise pollution caused by the transport operators due to the electric an artificially generated air horns in a highly congested and populated metropolitan city of Calcutta. They prayed the writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to enforce provisions of Rule 114 of Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940.

The Counsel for the petitioners argued that the above rules prescribed that every transport vehicle shall be fitted with bulb horn. However, the transport operators are grossly violating the said provisions by using air horn and electric horn which produces a shrill and loud noise.

The Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that it is the duty of the State Government to perform statutory obligation under Rule 114 (2) of the Rules and contravened the provisions. Even section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 prescribes punishments in case of violation of the provisions. The Court held that the indiscriminate use of an electric or an air horn is amounting to noise pollution in Calcutta and congested areas of the State of West Bengal. The Court directed the State Government to issue notice or notification immediately notifying to all the transport vehicle operators about the restrictions provided under the Rules and directing them to remove the electric, air and other loud and shrill horn forthwith and to use only bulb horn in the State.

5) MoulanaMufti Syed Mohammed Noorur Rehman Barkati v State of West Bengal , AIR 1999 Cal. 15 (Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.)

Constitution of India Article 14, 19(1) (a), 25, Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986- Rule 3 and Schedule III,

Use of Microphones n mosques amounts Noise Pollution

Moulana Mufti Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati, Imam and Khatib, Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid, Dharamtala and Chairman Gharib Nawaz Educational and Charitable society, Calcutta and eight others filed this writ application for a declaration that Rule 3 of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 vis-à-vis Schedule III of the said Rule do not apply in case of Mosques more particularly the time of Azan from the Mosques and for the declaration that Schedule III of he Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 is ultra vires Articles 14 an 25 of the Constitution. The petitioners also prayed for withdrawal of all conditions and restrictions which were notified by the police and other authorities pursuant to the order passed in the case of Om Birangana Religious Society v. State, reported in 100 CWN 617.

                 The petitioners submitted that Azan is essential for all obligatory prayers and is called by Muezzin in loud voice to summon all believers in Islam to prayers. It was further submitted that when Azan was introduced by Prophet Muhammad it was called by a person in a loud voice. With the passage of time, because of increase in population, industries and environmental changes a need was felt to invite the believers to congregational prayers by calling Azan through any instrument, and hence it was claimed that user of microphones for the purpose of Azan is a part of the religious right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

                 After hearing to the arguments of the parties the Court held that the use of microphone is not an integral of Azan and /or necessary for making Azan effective. Simply because microphone has been invented and ultimately it is found that it is one of the major sources of sound pollution and it affects the fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and making the citizens captive listeners, suspending all their fundamental rights. To the argument that Environment (Protection) Act, Rules and the Schedule therein are ultra vires under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution, the Court held it as wholly misconceived as it had not resulted in any discrimination.

              The Court further held that the restrictions on the use of microphone as imposed by the Court, Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board have to be carried out by all concern at any cost and also passed several directions to the local authorities. Hence the Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was misconceived and without any merit.