|
JUDGMENT
R.C.
Lahoti, C.J.
1. 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-à-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
interveners 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.(C) No. 72/98
2. 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.
Facts in C.A. No. 3735 of 2005 (Arising out
of S.L.P.(C) No. 21851/03)
3. Leave granted.
4. 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.
5. 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 Court also appointed Shri Jitender
Sharma, Senior Advocate and Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate
to appear as Amicus Curiae. Both the learned counsel
were present in the Court and accepted the assignment.
Unfortunately, Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate expired during
the pendency of the proceedings. Shri Sandeep Narayan,
Advocate has appeared in his place and assisted the
Court.
6. 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.
7.
Though, as we have already noted, 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 interveners 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.
8. It is obvious that during the course
of the hearing the scope got enlarged and the Court
has been addressed on very many issues from very many
angles.
9.
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 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. None 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.
10. 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 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 and Ors.,
MANU/DE/0654/2001 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent
of Police, Kottayam, MANU/KE/0001/1993. 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.
11. 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?
|
