http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.K.R.  MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/08/2000

BENCH: M B Shah, J. & S.N. Phukan, J.

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

Leave granted.

L....I..........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J      The  questions  involved in this appeal are that  in  a country  having multiple religions and numerous  communities or  sects,  whether a particular community or sect  of  that community  can claim right to add to noise pollution on  the ground of religion?  Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers  by  use  of microphones and loudspeakers so  as  to disturb  the peace or tranquility of neighbourhood should be permitted?  Undisputedly 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.  In our view, in a civilized 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 day-time or other persons carrying on other  activities  cannot  be permitted.  It should  not  be forgotten  that  young babies in the neighbourhood are  also entitled  to  enjoy  their natural right of  sleeping  in  a peaceful   atmosphere.    A  student   preparing   for   his examination  is  entitled  to  concentrate  on  his  studies without  their  being  any unnecessary  disturbance  by  the neighbours.  Similarly, old and infirm are entitled to enjoy reasonable  quietness  during  their leisure  hours  without there  being  any nuisance of noise pollution.  Aged,  sick, people  afflicted  with  psychic  disturbances  as  well  as children  up  to  6 years of age are considered to  be  very sensible  to  noise.  Their rights are also required  to  be honoured.

    Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules for noise pollution level are framed which prescribe permissible limits of noise in residential, commercial, industrial areas or silence zone.  The question is whether the appellant can be  permitted to violate the said provisions and add to  the noise  pollution?  In our view, to claim such a right itself would be unjustifiable.  In these days, the problem of noise pollution  has become more serious with the increasing trend towards  industrialization,  urbanization and  modernization and  is  having  many evil effects including danger  to  the health.    It  may  cause   interruption  of  sleep,  affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

high  blood  pressure,  depression,  irritability,  fatigue, gastro-intestinal  problems,  allergy,  distraction,  mental stress  and annoyance etc.  This also affects animals alike. The  extent  of  damage depends upon the  duration  and  the intensity  of noise.  Sometimes it leads to serious law  and order problem.  Further, in an organized society, rights are related with duties towards others including neighbours.

    Keeping  this background in mind, we would narrate  the facts in brief for resolving the controversy involved in the present case.  This appeal by special leave is filed against the  judgment  and order dated 19.4.1999 passed by the  High Court  of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P.  No.  61  of 1998.   The  appellant  is the Church of God  (Full  Gospel) (Church  for  short) located at K.K.R.  Nagar,  Madhavaram High   Road,  Chennai.   It  has  a  prayer  hall  for   the Pentecostal   Christians  and  is   provided  with   musical instruments  such  as  drum set, triple gango,  guitar  etc. Respondent  No.1-KKR  Majestic  Colony  Welfare  Association (Welfare  Association  for  short)  made  a  complaint  on 15.5.1996   to  the  Tamilnadu   Pollution   Control   Board (hereinafter  referred  to as the Board)  stating  therein that   prayers  in  the  Church   were  recited   by   using loudspeakers,  drums  and other sound producing  instruments which  caused noise pollution thereby disturbing and causing nuisance to the normal day life of the residents of the said colony.   Complaints were also made to the Superintendent of Police  and the Inspector of Police--respondents Nos 5 and 6 respectively.  The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Boardrespondent No.4 herein on 23.5.1996 addressed a letter to  respondent  No.5, the Superintendent of Police,  Chengai MGR  District  (East),  Chennai,  to   take  action  on  the complaint.   On 12.6.1996, respondent No.4 again addressed a letter  to respondent No.5 enclosing therewith the  analysis report  of  the Ambient noise level survey conducted in  the vicinity of the appellants church hall which disclosed that noise  pollution  was  due  to plying  of  vehicles  on  the Madhavaram  High Road.  Respondent No.1 gave representations to  various officials in this regard.  Thereafter respondent No.1Welfare  Association filed Criminal O.P.  No.61 of 1998 before  the  High  Court  of   Madras  for  a  direction  to respondent  Nos.  5 and 6 to take action on the basis of the letter issued by respondent No.4.  In the High Court, it was contended  by  learned  counsel  for  the  Church  that  the petition  was  filed  with  an oblique motive  in  order  to prevent  a religious minority institution from pursuing  its religious   activities  and  the   Court  cannot  issue  any direction   to  prevent  the   Church  from  practicing  its religious  beliefs.   It was also submitted that  the  noise pollution  was due to plying of vehicles and not due to  use of loudspeakers etc.

    The  learned Judge referred to the decision of the High Court  in  Appa  Rao, M.S.  v.  Government of Tamil  Nadu  & Another   (1995-1  L.W.   (Vol.115)   319)   where   certain guidelines  have  been laid down for controlling  the  noise pollution.   In  Appa Raos case, the Division Bench of  the Madras  High Court after considering the contentions  raised by  the parties and decisions cited therein and also to  the provisions of Section 41 and 71(a) of the Madras City Police Act,  1888  and Section 10 of the Madras Town Nuisance  Act, 1989 has issued directions to the Government for controlling the  noise  pollution  and  for the use  of  amplifiers  and loudspeakers.  In the said case, the Court has observed that the  grievances of the petitioners, who have complained with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

regard  to the noise pollution were fully justified and  the authorities  concerned  were turning or made to turn by  the higher  powers a Nelsons eye to the violation of rules  and regulations  in  these matters.  The Court  also  considered copy  of an article which appeared in the August, 1982 Issue of  Science Today and a copy of the ICMR Bulletin of July, 1979  containing  a Study on Noise Pollution in South  India wherein  it is pointed out that noise pollution will lead to serious nervous disorders, emotional tension leading to high blood-pressure,   cardiovascular  diseases,    increase   in cholesterol level resulting in heart attacks and strokes and even damage to foetus.

    The  learned  Single  Judge   also  referred  to  other decisions  and directed respondent Nos.5 and 6 to follow the guidelines  issued  in Appa Raos case (Supra) and  to  take necessary  steps  to  bring  down the  noise  level  to  the permitted extent by taking action against the vehicles which make  noise  and  also by making the Church  to  keep  their speakers  at a lower level.  He further held that the Survey report  submitted  by  the Board would go to show  that  the Church  was  not  the sole contributor of the noise  and  it appeared  that  the  interference of noise was also  due  to plying  of  vehicles.   The learned Judge pointed  out  that there  was nothing of malice and malicious wish to cause any hindrance  to  the free practice of religious faith  of  the Church  and  if the noise created by the Church exceeds  the permissible decibels then it has to be abated.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the Church.

    Mr.   G.  Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant contended that the High Court has failed to note that the two survey reports of the Pollution Control Board  clearly attributed the noise pollution in the area in question  to  the  vehicular traffic and not to any  of  the activities of the appellant-Church and, therefore, direction issued in respect of controlling the noise ought not to have been  extended in respect of the appellant-Church;  that the High  Court  has  overlooked that the right to  profess  and practice  Christianity is protected under Articles 25 and 26 of  the  Constitution of India which cannot be dislodged  by directing   the  authorities  to  have   a  check   on   the appellant-Church;   and that the judgment relied upon by the High  Court  in Appa Raos case (Supra) did not empower  the authorities to interfere with the religious practices of any community.

    The   learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of   the respondents   contended   that   the  appellant-Church   has deliberately tried to give religious colour to this cause of action   as  respondent  no.1  -  Welfare   Association   is consisting of members belonging to all religions as found by the High Court.  It is contended that even if the contention of  the  appellant-Churchthat  the noise created by  it  is within  the  prescribed limitis taken as it is,  the  order passed  by the High Court will not in any way prejudice  the right  of religious practice of appellant because the  order of  the High Court is only with regard to reducing the noise pollution  in  that area.  It is further contended that  the High  Court  can pass orders to protect and preserve a  very fundamental  right of citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of  the Constitution  of  India.   He relied upon  the  judgment  of Calcutta  High  Court in Om Birangana Religious  Society  v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

The State and others [CWN 1995-96 (Vol.100) 617] wherein the Court  dealt with a similar matter.  The questions posed  by the  Court  for  consideration werewhether the  public  are captive  audience  or listener when permission is given  for using  loud-speakers  in  public  and   the  person  who  is otherwise  unwilling  to bear the sound and/or the music  or the  communication  made  by the loud-speakers,  but  he  is compelled  to tolerate all these things against his will and health?   Does it concern simply a law and order  situation? Does  it  not generate sound pollution?  Does it not  affect the  other known rights of a citizen?  Even if a citizen  is ill  and  even if such a sound may create adverse effect  on his  physical and mental condition, yet he is made a captive audience to listen.  The High Court held that:

    It  cannot be said that the religious teachers or  the spiritual  leaders  who had laid down these tenets, had  any way desired the use of microphones as a means of performance of  religion.   Undoubtedly, one can practice,  profess  and propagate religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution  but  that  is  not  an  absolute  right.   The provision  of  Article  25 is subject to the  provisions  of Article  19(1)(a)  of the Constitution.  On true and  proper construction  of  the provision of Article 25(1), read  with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot be said that a  citizen should be coerced to hear any thing which he does not like or which he does not require.

    Thereafter, the High Court laid down certain guidelines for  the Pollution Control Board for grant of permission  to use loudspeakers and to maintain noise level in West Bengal.

    In  our  view,  the contentions raised by  the  learned counsel  for  the appellant deserves to be rejected  because the  direction given by the learned Judge to the authorities is  only  to follow the guidelines laid down in  Appa  Raos case decided by the Division Bench of the same High Court on the basis of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889.  It is also in conformity with the Noise  Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed by  the  Central  Government  under the  provisions  of  the Environment  (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of  the Environment  (Protection) Rules, 1986.  Rule 3 of the  Noise Pollution  (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for ambient  air  quality  standards  in respect  of  noise  for different  areas/zones as specified in the Schedule  annexed to the rule which is as under:-

Ambient       Air Quality Standards in respec  t of Noise    __ Area Code             Category of Area/           Limits in dB(A) Leq.   Night Time                                 Zone  Day Time@@                   JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJIIIIIIIIII

(A)                     Industrial Area                     75                  70 (B)                     Commercial Area                     65                  55 (C)                     Residential Area                    55                   45 (D)                     Silence Zone                        50                       40

Note:-

    (1) Day time shall mean from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    (2) Night time shall mean from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.

    (3)  Silence zone is defined as an area comprising  not less   than  100  metres   around   hospitals,   educational institutions  and courts.  The silence zones are zones which are  declared as such by the competent authority.  (4) Mixed categories  of  areas  may be declared as one  of  the  four above-mentioned categories by the competent authority.

Other relevant rules for controlling noise pollution are: -

    4.  Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures.

    (1)  The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the  ambient  air quality standards in respect of  noise  as specified in the Schedule.

    (2)   The  authority  shall  be  responsible  for   the enforcement  of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance  of the ambient air quality standards in  respect of noise.

    5.   Restrictions  on  the use  of  loudspeakers/public address system.

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

    (2) A loud speaker 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.

6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.

    Whoever,  in  any  place   covered  under  the  silence zone/area  commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:-

(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,

    (ii)  whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a  horn either  musical  or pressure, or trumpet or beats or  sounds any instrument, or

(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to attract crowds.

7. Complaints to be made to the authority.

    (1)  A  person  may,  if the noise  level  exceeds  the ambient  noise  standards by 10 dB(A) or more given  in  the corresponding   columns  against  any   area/zone,  make   a complaint to the authority.

    (2)  The authority shall act on the complaint and  take action   against  the  violator  in  accordance   with   the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.

8. Power to prohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    (1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer  incharge  of a police station or other  information received  by  him that it is necessary to do so in order  to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of  annoyance,  disturbance,  discomfort or  injury  to  the public  or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity,  he may, by a written order issue such  directions as  he may consider necessary to any person for  preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating:-

    (a)  the  incidence  or  continuance  in  or  upon  any premises of-

(i) any vocal or instrumental music,

    (ii)  sounds  caused  by  playing,  beating,  clashing, blowing  or  use in any manner whatsoever of any  instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus  or  contrivance which is capable of producing  or re-producing sound, or

    (b)  the  carrying or in or upon, any premises  of  any trade,  avocation  or operation or process resulting  in  or attended with noise.

    (2)  The  authority empowered under sub-rule  (1)  may, either  on  its  own motion, or on the  application  of  any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order:

    Provided  that before any such application is  disposed of,  the  said  authority shall afford to the  applicant  an opportunity  of appearing before it either in person or by a person  representing him and showing cause against the order and  shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.

    Aforesaid  rules  are unambiguous, clear and speak  for themselves.   Considering  the same, it cannot be said  that the  directions  issued by the High Court are in any  manner illegal or erroneous.

    In  the present case, the contention with regard to the rights  under  Article 25 or Article 26 of the  Constitution which are subject to public order, morality and health are not  required  to be dealt with in detail mainly because  as stated  earlier  no  religion prescribes  or  preaches  that prayers   are  required  to  be  performed   through   voice amplifiers or by beating of drums.  In any case, if there is such  practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others  including  that  of  being not  disturbed  in  their activities.   We would only refer to some observations  made by  the  Constitution Bench of this Court qua  rights  under Articles   25  and  26  of   the  Constitution  in   Acharya Maharajshri  Narendra  Prasadji Anand Prasadji  Maharaj  and Others  v.  The State of Gujarat & Others [(1975) 1 SCC 11]. After  considering  the  various   contentions,  the   Court observed  that  no  rights in an organized society  can  be absolute.  Enjoyment of ones rights must be consistent with the  enjoyment  of rights also by others.  Where in  a  free play  of  social forces it is not possible to bring about  a voluntary harmony, the State has to step in to set right the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

imbalance  between  competing  interests.  The  Court  also observed  that a particular fundamental right cannot  exist in  isolation in a water-tight compartment.  One Fundamental Right  of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with  the exercise  of  another Fundamental Right by others also  with reasonable  and valid exercise of power by the State in  the light of the Directive Principles in the interests of social welfare  as  a  whole.  Further, it is to  be  stated  that because  of  urbanization  or  industrialization  the  noise pollution may in some area of a city/town might be exceeding permissible  limits  prescribed  under the rules,  but  that would  not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same  by  beating  of drums or by use of  voice  amplifiers, loudspeakers  or  by  such other  musical  instruments  and, therefore,   rules  prescribing    reasonable   restrictions including  the  rules for the use of loudspeakers and  voice amplifiers  framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act,  1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000  are  required to be enforced .  We would mention  that even  though  the  Rules are unambiguous, there is  lack  of awareness  among the citizens as well as the  Implementation Authorities  about  the Rules or its duty to  implement  the same.   Noise polluting activities which are rampant and yet for  one  reason  or the other, the aforesaid Rules  or  the rules  framed  under  various  State  Police  Acts  are  not enforced.   Hence,  the  High  Court  has  rightly  directed implementation  of  the same.  In the result, the appeal  is dismissed.