Bombay High Court Orders Strict Enforcement of Noise Pollution Laws: “Use of Loudspeakers is Not an Essential Part of Any Religion,” Reaffirms Right to a Peaceful Environment Over Religious Practices

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental rights, particularly the right to a peaceful and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court directed strict compliance with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and stated that no person or organization, including religious institutions, can violate these laws. It also clarified that using loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice, and denying their use does not infringe upon Article 25 of the Constitution (Freedom of Religion). The court further directed the authorities to take immediate and effective action against violations, including lodging complaints or filing FIRs under the law.

Facts

1. The petitioners were resident welfare associations representing residents in Nehru Nagar and Chunabhatti areas in Mumbai.
2. The residents alleged consistent noise pollution caused by the use of loudspeakers in mosques for daily prayers, including at 5:00 AM and beyond permissible hours during festivals.
3. The loudspeakers often exceeded permissible noise levels, violating the Noise Pollution Rules, which classify the area as a residential and silent zone due to its proximity to schools and hospitals.
4. Despite multiple complaints to the police and other authorities, no substantial action was taken, forcing the petitioners to approach the court.

Issues

1. Did the inaction of police and municipal authorities in curbing noise pollution amount to a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 21?
2. Can the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes be exempted under Article 25 of the Constitution?
3. Should authorities be directed to file FIRs against violators under noise pollution laws?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners contended:

1. Noise pollution caused by loudspeakers violated their right to a peaceful environment, protected under Article 21.
2. The consistent use of loudspeakers without permission, especially in silent zones, violated the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000.
3. The police authorities failed to take any effective measures, despite being duty-bound to enforce the law.
4. The petitioners highlighted that the Noise Pollution Rules mandate specific decibel limits for different zones, which were routinely breached.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Police’s Stand: The respondents, including police authorities, submitted affidavits stating that noise levels were regularly monitored and were largely within permissible limits. They claimed that loudspeaker use was allowed only after issuing strict permissions, and action was taken against violators.
2. MPCB’s Stand: The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) argued that three complaints against the violators had been filed before the trial court based on reports received from police, and noise levels were monitored as per legal standards.

Analysis of the Law

1. Noise Pollution Rules, 2000:
   • Rule 5(1) prohibits the use of loudspeakers without written permission.
   • Rule 5(4) restricts noise levels to 10 dB(A) above ambient standards in public places or 75 dB(A), whichever is lower.
   • Residential and silent zones must adhere to stricter noise limits (55 dB(A) during the day and 45 dB(A) at night for residential areas; 50 dB(A) during the day and 40 dB(A) at night for silent zones).
2. Article 21: The court reaffirmed that the right to life includes the right to live in a peaceful and healthy environment. Noise pollution, which disrupts sleep, affects health, and causes general discomfort, violates Article 21.
3. Article 25: The court clarified that freedom of religion does not include the right to use loudspeakers, as they are not an essential part of any religion. The use of loudspeakers must comply with noise pollution regulations.
4. Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: Section 38 empowers police to prevent noise pollution and take action against violators, including imposing fines or seizing equipment.

Precedent Analysis

The court relied on the following judgments:

1. Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association: This Supreme Court judgment held that no religion permits activities that disturb public peace, such as using loudspeakers or amplifiers.
2. In Re Noise Pollution: The Supreme Court declared that noise pollution violates Article 21 and cannot be justified under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) or Article 25.
3. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. State of Maharashtra: This Bombay High Court judgment emphasized that all places of worship, regardless of religion, are bound by noise pollution laws, and the use of loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court observed that loudspeaker use violated the petitioners’ fundamental right to a peaceful environment, especially in a residential and silent zone.
2. Police Inaction: Despite multiple complaints, the police failed to take timely and effective action. This was a dereliction of duty under the Noise Pollution Rules and the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. Permissible Noise Levels: Reports submitted by the police revealed that noise levels from some mosques exceeded permissible limits (e.g., 98.7 dB in one instance), substantiating the petitioners’ claims.
4. Balanced Approach: While recognizing the right to religious freedom, the court emphasized that it must be balanced against the fundamental rights of others.

Conclusion

1. The court directed the police and municipal authorities to:
   • Enforce noise pollution laws rigorously.
   • Ensure that no loudspeakers are used without proper permissions and adherence to decibel limits.
   • Take legal action against violators, including filing FIRs where necessary.
2. It held that denying the use of loudspeakers does not infringe upon religious rights and is necessary to protect public health and peace.

Implications

1. This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding environmental rights and public health.
2. It underscores the importance of balancing religious freedom with other fundamental rights, particularly the right to a peaceful environment.
3. The decision serves as a precedent for stricter enforcement of noise pollution laws across India.

Also Read – Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Dowry Harassment under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 DP Act; Reduces Sentence to Time Served, Orders ₹3 Lakh Compensation for 19-Year-Old Case of Demanding 100 Sovereigns of Gold