RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner asserts that he is a well-known social worker and actively associated with many NGOs fighting for the cause of human dignity, civil liberty and social justice. He has filed this public interest petition for direction to the State Authorities to prevent the environmental noise pollution caused during the festive seasons, religious and social ceremonies spread over the year, by use of various sound amplifiers and other devices besides the noise pollution by factories, trains and aeroplanes. Further direction is sought to prevent other atrocities committed on the society in the name of religious festivals such as (a) traffic hazards by putting Pandals on busy streets (the number proliferating each year) in an indiscriminate manner, (b) theft of electricity with impunity for lighting and decoration of Pandals, resulting in loss to public exchequer and (c) extortion and intimidation of public by unscrupulous elements in the name of donation for the Pandals.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the citizens have a right to a decent environment and to live peacefully which includes right to sound sleep at night, to leisure and free locomotion during the day time. These are essential ingredients of the right to life guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner asserts that the mandate of Article 51A(g) obligates every citizen to protect and improve the environment. Reliance is placed on the exposition of the Apex Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 420 In Paragraph 7, the Court held that right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. It is contended that the use of various sound amplifiers during the festivals, social and cultural gatherings and, more particularly, if unregulated, inevitably causes health hazards and nuisance to the public. It entails in infringement of basic human rights and also fundamental rights of the captive listeners in the concerned locality. The petitioner has then placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal, 1999 AIR(Cal) 15 wherein the issues raised by the petitioner have been squarely dealt with in the context of right to practice and propagate one's own religion. After analysing the gamut of decisions, it is held that right does not give licence to anyone to create noise pollution and muchless force the captive listeners to suffer the same. That, none can claim an absolute right to suspend others rights or disturb their basic human rights and fundamental rights. The petitioner has also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others, 2000 7 SCC 282 wherein it is held that sleep is restorative time of life and sound night's sleep is crucial to good health. The Court held that 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. Further, in a civilised society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during daytime or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. Rights of others are also required to be honoured. The Court also highlighted that the problem of noise has become a very serious issue-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, gastro-intestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance etc. It also affects animals alike. Sometimes it lead to serious law and order problem. Further, in a civilised society, rights are related with duties towards others including neighbours.

(3.) To buttress the argument that noise pollution should not be countenanced, the petitioner has placed reliance not only on Article 21 but also Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1982 (in short "the Act of 1982") and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Rules of 2000"). These Rules oblige the State Authorities to take certain measures for enforcement of the restrictions specified therein. Rule 3 prescribes for the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones, which are specified in the Schedule annexed to these Rules. Rule 4, read with Rules 5 and 8 obliges the State Authorities to ensure that the restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system are observed without any exception.