This article is written by Charul Mishra, a student pursuing B.A.LLB from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. In this article, the author has dealt with the importance of Judicial Activism in terms of dealing with Noise Pollution with the help of landmark judgements.

Introduction

With the development in the technology of today’s world, the living conditions of people have evolved to a great extent. With this advancement, people also face various problems in their day to day lives concerning environmental issues like noise pollution. Noise has emerged as one of the major pollutants of the environment. For this, the experts conducted various research and study with regards to the damage which is caused by natural or man-made noise and how to prevent it. In present times, noise pollution has become one of the factors which affect the mental, physical and psychological health of individuals. Thus, this poses a need for judicial authorities to take some steps to prevent society from noise pollution and make guidelines for the use of noise in the public.

Noise Pollution

Generally, Noise Pollution includes those unwanted and invasive sounds that meddle into the daily activities of the people without any reason. These sounds may have many sources like construction noise, industrial work noise, household noise, etc. Various factors help these noises to elevate to such a level that it destructs the health of people knowingly and unknowingly. These factors include the increase in population, urbanization which ultimately raise the level of noise making sources like traffic and neighbourhood noise. Noise pollution also motivates small contingencies that prevent the nation from developing. These contingencies include poor concentration, difficulty in communication, an increase of stress and loss of sleep which motivates the health costs of the individuals, and loss of psychological well-being. 

Apart from this, there are various aspects which are affected due to the noise pollution that includes the introduction of budget to make soundproof transportation and institutions, lowered property prices of such buildings which are into areas where noise pollution is at the peak like houses in Industrial areas or near railway stations. The problem of noise pollution which has arisen in India in recent years is a consequence of the indiscriminate use of loudspeakers. Often its indiscriminate usage from religious places and in conducting religious rituals and discourses makes it too difficult for citizens to enjoy their fundamental freedoms with all human dignity.

Existing legal provisions for Noise pollution

Although environmental protection legislation exists, the administration has not yet understood the seriousness of the noise pollution issue. However, the noise has been included in Section 2 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and further in Section 6(b) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which requires the Central Government to implement noise pollution control regulations. The Government has advised Conditioned air Quality Requirements in terms of pollution in pursuit of all this. The Central Pollution Control Board has authorized Noise Standards for diverse sources of noise which the administration has not yet informed.

Section 3 of the Bihar Control of the Use and Function of Loudspeakers Act, 1955 provides for limits on loudspeaker use and operation. It says that No individual shall use and play a loudspeaker: a) within any distance as may be prescribed from a hospital, a building in which there is telephone exchange, or b) within such distance as may be prescribed from any law-established educational establishment or hostel as the students use. Also, Section 6 of the Act states that the cognizance of an offence under the Act should be based on a petition filed by, or at the instance of, the individual aggrieved by the crime or a written record provided by any police officer.

Then, there is the enactment of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 which came under the Environment Protection Act which specifically dealt with noise pollution. These rules focused on regulating and controlling the sources which produce or generate noise and intrude into the daily lives of the people.

In terms of Indian Penal Code, Section 268 provides that “An individual is guilty of public nuisance who commits some act or is guilty of an unlawful act which causes some common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in general who reside or inhabit a property in the vicinity or which may automatically cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have the ability to exercise some public right.” Whereas Section 290 states that “when an individual commits a public nuisance that is not otherwise punishable by this Law, a fine, which may amount to Rs 200/-, shall be imposed”. In addition, according to Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has the authority to issue an implicit order requiring the individual having caused the nuisance to remove it.

Judicial Activism in Noise Pollution issue

The courts play a very meaningful part by their approach towards noise emission issues. This may be accomplished by using the power of judicial review in lieu of regulatory directives or legislation aimed at regulating the rise of noise emissions. Until this strategy is adopted by the regulatory authority, the emissions management measures and administrative procedures would not yield desired outcomes.

In providing meaning to any legislation or rule, the judicial process must put stress upon the social policies and the requirements of modern life. Legislative change in a democratic set-up is a slow process, so the judiciary has to move forward through its rulings and keep the law relevant to real life, within its constitutional boundaries. There are various micro-provisions in the different legislations that aim to regulate noise emissions explicitly or indirectly. Any of these laws had not been adopted to regulate noise emissions, but these regulations can be applied legally through judicial interpretation and provide an appropriate solution in noise pollution cases. These provisions include punitive actions, preventive actions, and remedies provided under the law of torts.

Landmark judgments concerning Noise Pollution

Sushil Chandra Srivastava v. The State of U.P. decided on 20 August 2019.

According to the facts of the case, the district administration has installed large L.C.Ds equipped with amplifiers in the residential area. L.C.D, beginning at 4.00 a.m. Regularly, until midnight, without any break with a bursting crash. L.C.D is still causing a sound hazard as well as a traffic disturbance in the surrounding neighbourhood. Even the son of one of the complainants, who was a 12th-grade student, was unable to prepare for his exams. In addition, three hospitals are also susceptible to Noise Pollution.

The Allahabad High Court stated that “In India, people usually do not find noise to be a form of pollution, and most people are not well aware of the effects of noise pollution on their safety.” It was further stated by the court that the legislation and rules related to Noise Pollution need to be strictly complied with for public interest and welfare. Apart from this, the court further provided some guidelines which were to be strictly followed. These guidelines stated that:

• DM shall make adequate publicity in the leading newspapers as to directions and rules for the year 2000. The relation should be made to the appropriate contact information of the agencies concerned.
• A toll-free number is provided to citizens to make complaints about noise pollution. The competent authority shall take action against the offender pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure, 2000. A confidential report shall also be made.
• Under the rules of 2000, the authority shall not grant permission for DJ on the ground that the noise generated by the DJ is unpleasant and ominous.
• The DM team shall make a consistent visit to their region, in particular before any festival, and shall notify the organizers of compliance with the Rules of Procedure, 2000 and the guidance of the Supreme Court along with this Court.
• All places of worship of all religions shall be bound by the provisions of the Rules, 2000.
• DM / Senior Superintendent of Police shall convene a meeting with civil society organizers prior to the beginning of festivals to urge them to comply strictly with the law and, in the event of failure, to follow the legal consequences.
• Non-compliance with the Rules shall be subject to imprisonment for a term which may stretch to 5 years and a fine which may extend to Rs 1,00,000.
• A fresh exercise shall be carried out in the light of the definitions provided for in Rule 2(e) and (f) of the said Regulations for the classification of areas and the determination of noise standards.
• The competent authority pursuant to the Rules, 2000 shall be legally responsible for the obligation to ensure adherence with the Supreme Court order, as set out above, the Rules of Procedure 2000 and this order, failing which they must, therefore, be answerable to this Court in contempt of jurisdiction.

Kirori Mal Bishamber Dayal v. The State decided on 10 November 1955

According to the facts of the case, the accused caused noise and emitted smoke and vibrations by operating heavy machinery in the residential area. This caused huge hindrance in the daily lives of the people living in that residence area.

The Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him under Section 290 of IPC and fined Rs 50 for his acts causing noise pollution.

Hardeep Singh & Others v. SDMC & Others decided on 12 February 2019

According to the facts of the case, An application was lodged before the National Green Tribunal alleging that DJs, sound systems, community address systems were used at marriages or other events, and that noise was generated at irregular times that adversely affected the safety of people.

The Tribunal directed the Chief Secretary, the commissioner of the Police, Delhi, and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee to take steps for enforcing the steps given by the Supreme Court with regards to the use of Loudspeakers, control of vehicular noise and creation of awareness. But, the Delhi government did not work on the order due to which the National Green Tribunal ordered the authorities of Delhi government to deposit the amount of Rs 5 lakhs with the Central Pollution control board within a week and should launch a website for people to register their grievances related to noise pollution.

George Joseph v. District Collector decided on 06 August 2012

According to the facts of the case, a writ petition was filed by George Joseph in the High Court of Kerala stating that the state authorities allow anyone to use a loudspeaker with the exceeded noise level. In this regard, the High Court questioned the plaintiff to bring up the issue with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) who has the power to grant approval to use Loud Speakers outside the property.

With this, the High Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to listen to the issues of the complainant and after hearing the complaint, it should take necessary actions to ensure that noise level should conform to the ambient air quality of sound norms under the noise pollution control rules. This case brought a new light towards the role of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate since they are the proper authorities to deal with the issue of noise pollution rules of the Government of India. These authorities are the ones who help in the implementation of the guidelines and rules provided by the Honourable courts.

Conclusion

The Judgements and the legislations provided above indicate how the applications or complaints with regards to noise pollution are dealt with by the Administrative and judicial authorities. However, the National Green Tribunal, due to meaningful discretion, plays a significant role while maintaining noise pollution in any residence or area. Although various legislations provide rules and guidelines regarding noise pollution and work for the implementation of these rules, it becomes very difficult when factors like social, religious, and political subjects exist in a particular case. But, since the Judiciary is so active regarding this issue, the conditions are quite controlled. The Guidelines issued by the High Courts and the Supreme Court help in the immediate implementation of laws and rules against acts of noise pollution. From the above headings, it also understood that for proper implementation of laws, the Deputy Superintendent of the Police and the District Magistrate plays an important role as they are authorities who can see the problem from the aggrieved person’s view and help him or her with immediate remedies.

References

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/07/27/legal-control-of-noise-pollution-a-critical-evaluation/
• http://www.lawsindia.com/Industrial%20Law/K092.htm

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: