http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3735 of 2005

PETITIONER: Forum, Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution      

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Anr.                                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/10/2005

BENCH: CJI R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan

JUDGMENT: J   U   D   G   M   E   N   T

R.C. Lahoti,  CJI  

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (i) and clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection)  Act, 1986 (29/1986), read with Rule 5 of the Environment  (Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government made the  Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter  referred to as ’the Noise Rules’) which have come into force  w.e.f. 14th February, 2000.

Rule 5 of the Noise Rules reads as under: "5.     Restrictions on the use of loud  speakers/public address system:-   

(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system  shall not be used except after obtaining written  permission from the authority.

(2) A loudspeaker or a public address system  shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m.  to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for  communication within, e.g. auditoria,  conference rooms, community halls and  banquet halls.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (2), the State Government may, subject to  such terms and conditions as are necessary to  reduce noise pollution, permit use of loud  speakers or public address systems during  night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00  midnight) on or during any cultural or religious  festive occasion of a limited duration not  exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar  year."

Sub-rule (3) has been inserted in the present form by the Noise  Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2002  with effect from 11th October, 2002.  The constitutional validity  of sub-rule (3) was put in issue by the appellant herein by filing  a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. By its Judgment dated  14th March, 2003, the High Court has directed the petition to be  dismissed and the sub-rule has been held to be intra vires.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition by special leave.  

       On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that this  Court in its Judgment dated July 18, 2005 Noise Pollution (V),  in Re., (2005) 5 SCC 733, has held that freedom from noise  pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the  Constitution.  Noise interferes with the fundamental right of the  citizens to live in peace and to protect themselves against forced  audience.  This Court has also held that as between 10 p.m. and  6 a.m. which is the time for the people to sleep and have peace,  no noise pollution can be permitted.  The appellant also submits  that the impugned sub-rule (3) which permits the State  Government to relax the applicability of sub-rule (2) and grant  exemption therefrom between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight, is  violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and runs counter to the  law laid down by this Court in Noise Pollution (V), in Re.  (supra).  

       The learned Solicitor General has defended the vires of the  said sub-rule (3) and also the Judgment of the High Court.  In  his submission, the power to grant exemption is a reasonable  restriction placed in public interest. The relaxation is for a period  of 2 hours only and that too for a maximum of 15 days in all  during a calendar year confined to cultural or religious occasions.  Since the power has been conferred on the State Government by  the Central Government it cannot further be delegated.  The  power  would be exercised by the State Government by keeping  in view the interest of the entire State population.          Our attention was invited to Government of Goa Order No.  7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part-I/1116 published in the Official Gazette,  Government of Goa, Extraordinary No. 5, dated 5th February,  2005, wherein exercising the powers conferred by the said sub- rule (3) of Rule 5, the Government of Goa has specified nine  days, in advance, on which the exemption granted by sub-rule  (3) of Rule 5 would be available.  The Government has reserved  the power to notify six more days for cultural/religious festive  occasions.  Similarly, our attention was invited to Notification No.  NP 200/24/3 (Part 3) dated 7th April, 2003 whereby the  Maharashtra Government exercising the power under sub-rule  (3) of Rule 5 has notified 12 specific days, in advance, on which   such relaxation shall be permissible and remaining 3 days have  been reserved to be notified, on demand from the local people  for religious festivals and cultural programmes.

       A query was raised that once the power to grant  exemption is allowed, often the exemption becomes the rule.   Exemptions tend to be granted as a matter of course and are  thus often misused. Another query raised during the course of  hearing was that in the event of the vires of the said sub-rule (3)  being upheld, nothing prevents the Government from amending  the Noise Rules and enhancing the number of days on which the  power to grant exemption would be available or increasing the  permissible hours of relaxation and that would again defeat the  very object of preventing noise pollution. The learned Solicitor  General responded by submitting that the impugned sub-rule  has very limited operation which is reasonable and may not be  interfered with by the Court, subject to certain further  restrictions. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the  Government does not propose to widen the scope of the  exemption either by increasing the number of days or by  enhancing the duration of hours of exemption.  In spite of the  exemption being granted, the Government would take care to  see that the noise level does not exceed prescribed decibel  limits.     

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       Certain intervention applications were also filed. One  application is by nine organizations/bodies situated in Pune,  seeking  impleadment at the hearing in the appeal, so as to  support the impugned judgment of the High Court.  There were  other prayers for interventions seeking directions for widening  the scope of exemption under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5.  We make  it clear at the very outset, as we did in  Noise Pollution (V), in  Re. (supra) that we are not concerned with any religion or  religious practices; we are concerned only with the fundamental  right of the citizens and the people to protect themselves against  noise pollution and forced audiences.  We are inclined to quote  the following passage from Times of India (The Speaking Tree)  dated 7.10.2005: "Those who favour the use of loudspeakers  plead that it is a devotee’s religious duty  enjoined by the shastras to make others listen  and enjoy the singing of bhajans. Azaan too is  necessary to inform others that it is time for  namaz, a job assigned to the muezzin of the  mosque.  Wait a minute. There were no loudspeakers in  the old days. When different civilisations  developed or adopted different faiths or when  holy books were written to guide devotees,  they did not mention the use of loudspeakers  as being vital to spread religious devotion.  So the use of loudspeakers cannot be a must  for performing any religious act. Some argue  that every religion asks its followers to spread  its teachings and the loudspeaker is a modern  instrument that helps to do this more  effectively. They cannot be more wrong. No  religion ever says to force the unwilling to  listen to expressions of religious beliefs.    In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna:  "This secret gospel of the Gita should never be  imparted to a man who lacks penance, nor to  him who is wanting in devotion, nor even to  him who lends not a willing ear; and in no case  to him who finds fault with Me... He who,  offering the highest love to Me, preaches the  most profound gospel of the Gita among My  devotees, shall come to Me alone; there is no  doubt about it" (18.67-68).  The gospel should be delivered to only those  who enjoy listening to it and who have the  patience to do so. It shall never be forced upon  those who do not want it. The holy Qur’an  says, "Lakum Deenokum Walia Deen" \027 your  religion and belief is for you and my religion  and belief is for me. Each stay happy with her  own religion and belief.  It never says, make  others listen to the gospel of your faith by  using loudspeakers.  

A similar instance is found in Biblical literature.  The Gospel according to Saint Luke says:  "When Jesus had called the Twelve together,  he gave them power and authority to drive out  all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent  them out to preach the kingdom of God and to  heal the sick.  

He told them: ’Take nothing for the journey \027

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra  tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there  until you leave that town. If people do not  welcome you, shake the dust off your feet  when you leave their town, as a testimony  against them’. So they set out and went from  village to village, preaching the gospel and  healing people everywhere" (9.1-10).  

The earlier Supreme Court judgment banning  the un-solicited use of loudspeakers at  inconvenient times is in conformity with  religious tenets."

       The above-said passage appeals to us and in our opinion  very correctly states the factual position as to the objective of  several religions and their underlying logic.

       Looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India,  we think that a limited power of exemption from the operation of  the Noise Rules granted by the Central Government in exercise  of its statutory power cannot be held to be unreasonable.  The  power to grant exemption is conferred on the State Government.   It cannot be further delegated.  The power shall be exercised by  reference to the State as a unit and not by reference to districts,  so as to specify different dates for different districts.  It can be  reasonably expected that the State Government would exercise  the power with due care and caution and in public interest.   However, we make it clear that the scope of the exemption  cannot be widened either by increasing the number of days or by  increasing the duration beyond two hours. If that is attempted to  be done, then the said sub-rule (3) conferring power to grant  exemption may be liable to be struck down as violative of  Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We also make it clear that  the State Government should generally specify in advance, the  number and particulars of the days on which such exemption will  be operative. Such specification would exclude arbitrariness in  the exercise of power.  The exemption, when granted, shall not  apply to silence zone areas. This is only as a clarification as, this  even otherwise, is the position of law.   

       Before parting, we would like to clarify further that we may  not be understood as diluting in any manner our holding in  Noise Pollution (V), in Re. (supra). We are also not granting  any exemption or relaxation in favour of anyone by our verdict.   We are only upholding the constitutional validity of the Noise  Rule framed by the Central Government in exercise of its  statutory powers.

       Subject to the observations made hereinabove, the appeal  is dismissed and the Judgment of the High Court is affirmed.

       All the intervention applications be treated as disposed of.