Blog

Introduction :

The Gujarat HC[1] in its recent plea held that a 10-minute use of loudspeakers during Azan (religious Muslim prayer) to not be causing noise pollution. This has stirred a question of whether the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes is valid as per the law or not. Secondly, does the use of loudspeakers cause noise pollution and banning them is violative of the provisions of the Constitution.

Legislative View :

The term noise is derived from the term nausea in Latin and has been defined as an unwanted sound with a potential health hazard to health and communication. It is also to cause irreversible damage to the environment.

Section 2(a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 includes noise in the definition of “air pollutant”. Noise Pollution is considered to be a public nuisance and is Punishable under Section 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 268 states that,

“268. A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right[2]”

The government of India drafted the regulations for controlling noise pollution in the Noise Pollution (Control and Regulation) Rules, 1999 which was enforced in the year 2000.

The rules laid down that the control of noise pollution is in the control of state governments and ensure that the noise level is as permitted. It also stipulated that loudspeakers and public address systems should not be used unless there is a prior authorization of use. Furthermore, it provided that a loudspeaker or public address system shall not be strictly used at night (10 PM- 6.00 AM) unless there is permission from the State Government.

Judicial Pronouncements :

The question that often arises is whether the ban of loudspeakers in religious institutions is whether it is against Article 25 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Article 25 gives the right to religion and Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to the citizens.

The Kerala High Court in the case of P.A Jacob  v Superintendent of Police Kottayam[3] deduced that the use of loudspeakers in a Christianity denomination would disrupt the law and order by causing inconvenience to the other group of citizens. It held that an high volume noise would be against the principle of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution Of India.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in the case of Noise Pollution (V) Re[4], the hon’ble court held that freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution. It also relied on the Noise pollution rules to point that it is the State’s duty to ensure the noise level of a particular jurisdiction.

The Court further held that people cannot shelter under Article 19(1)(a) and justify noise pollution. It reasoned that although right to freedom of speech and expression are of fundamental in nature, it is not absolute and secondly, Article 21 supersedes Article 19 of the Constitution.

In another case of the Supreme Court, Church of God in India v. K.K.R majestic Colony Welfare Assn[5], it was held that no religion preaches to use voice amplifiers or loudspeakers to promote and propagate the religion. It laid down that religious establishments should keep in mind the society and the harm that may be caused because of the noise.

The Bombay High Court[6] in August 2016 held that the use of loudspeakers is not a fundamental right conferred under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was held that all religious places are bound by the noise pollution rules and must have permission from the appropriate authorities working for the state. The same was reiterated by the Punjab High Court[7] and ordered that,

“The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including religious bodies in temples, mosques and gurdwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 10dB(A) peripheral noise level”

In recent times, the Madras High Court in the case of K.Bose V The district Collector[8] held that the state and its machinery should ensure that no individual or institution, whatsoever may be cause any noise pollution affection the rights of the residents living in that area.

A Public Interest Litigation was filed to prohibit the use of loudspeakers during Azan in the high court of Karnataka[9]. The question that raised was whether the use of loudspeakers during Azan violate the right to religion of people of other faiths. The court held in the negative and refused to order mosques to stop playing azan on loudspeakers.

However, the court directed the authorities to implement the Noise Pollution rules and the state government to take action regarding the same.

In the case of K.Ramesh V The State of Tamilnadu[10], the court stated that fundamental rights and fundamental duties go hand in hand. Any religious institution exercising their right to practice must be reminded off their duties towards other citizens, upon whose rights are also to be protected.

The court held that all religious institutions must adhere to the rules of the law for the purpose of conducting their respective religious activities.

“Any such religious activities affecting the rights of the other citizen and any infringement of rights under the Constitution of India must be viewed seriously and all appropriate actions are to be initiated in the event of any complaint or otherwise”

The same ratio was held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Afzal Ansari V  State of UP[11]. The court added Azan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azan through loudspeakers cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion to guarantee protection under Article 25.

The decision of Gujarat Hight Court[12] on rejecting the plea to ban Loudspeakers during Azan is based on the mere knowledge that the voice used during Azan is relatively slow and 10 minutes of the same wont cause harm and compared the same to the use of arati and drums in hindu temples. Therefore, the test to whether a noise constitute to pollution is dependent upon the decibel of the sound and not the usage per se. 

Conclusion

It can thereby be said that the controlling of noise pollution purely lies in the hand of the state. There is no exemption or gateway to escape the noise pollution rules. It is mandatory to seek permission before using loudspeakers from the state authority.

It is also to be noted that, Article 21 prevails as in a greater ambit, Right to life and personal liberty includes the right to live In a pollution free environment which also includes noise pollution. Although Article 25 and 19 are fundamentally important, the rights are not absolute and they pertain of certain rules and conditions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Narsi Benwal, If 10 mins of Azaan causes noise pollution, what about loud music, bhajan in temples? Gujarat High Court rejects PIL against Azaan, BAR AND BENCH (Nov 29, 2023) https://www.barandbench.com/news/if-10-mins-azaan-causes-noise-pollution-what-loud-music-bhajan-temples-gujarat-high-court-rejects-pil-azaan.

[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860

[3] AIR 1993 Ker 1

[4] (2005) 5 SCC 733

[5] (2007) 7 SCC 282

[6] Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v The State of Maharashtra (2016) SCCOnline Bom 332

[7] Reet Mohinder Singh Virk v State of Punjab & Ors (2023) PHHC 107430

[8] K.Bose V The district Collector , W.P (MD) No. 9099 of 2004

[9] Chandrashekhar R v State of Karnataka WP 10473/2022

[10] K.Ramesh V The State of Tamilnadu W.P No 21143 of 2014

[11] 2020 SCCOnline All 592

[12] Id,1