CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 15

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M.B. SHAH, S.N. PHUKAN

Judgment text

CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K. K. R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. AUGUST 30, 2000 [M. B. SHAH AND S. N. PHUKAN, JJ. ] Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules thereunder-Rule 5- Noise Pollution-Church using loudspeakers, drums and other musical instruments during prayers-Held, noise level to be controlled since no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others-Constitution of India-Articles 19(1), 25 and 26. Appellant-Church used loudspeakers, drums and other musical instruments during prayers. Respondent-Association made a complaint against the Church to State Pollution Control Board regarding noise pollution. Complaints were also made to Poiice by the respondent Noise level surveys conducted by the Board in the vicinity ofthe appellant disclosed that the noise pollution was due to plying of vehicles on the road.

Since no action were forthcoming from the authorities concerned, the respondent filed a petition before High Court for directing the authorities to take action for creating noise pollution. The High Court directed the authorities to take necessary steps to bring down vehicle noise level and also directed the appellant to keep control of noise on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the High Court in another matter. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the survey reports of the Pollution Control Board clearly attributed the noise pollution in the area to the vehicular traffic and not to the activities of the appellant; that the direction by the High Court to the appellant to reduce noise level is uncalled for; and that right to profess and practice Religion 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.

The respondents contended that the appellant has given religious colour to the cause of action; that the order of the High Court would not prejudice the right of religious practice of the appellant since the order is only with regard to reducing the noise pollution in the area; and that the High Court ' 15 II can pass orders to protect and preserve every fundamental right ofcitizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. No religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace ofothers nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums. 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. 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 there 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. [18-D-E) 1. 2. 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. Claiming a right is 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 ofsleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, I hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, gastrointestinal 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. [18-G-H) 1. 3. The direction given by the High Court to the authorities is only to follow the guidelines laid down by a Division Bench of the same High Court on the basis of the local acts which is in conformity with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed by the Central Government under the provisions ofthe Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The rules are unambiguous, clear and speak for themselves.

Considering the same, it cannot be said that '. -- CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K. K. R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSON. . ,. the directions issued by the High Court are in any manner illegal or A erroneous. [22-A-C] Appa Rao, MS. v. Government ofTamil Nadu & Anr. , (1995) - 1 L. W. Vol. 115 319, relied on. B 1. 4. With regard to the rights under Article 25 or Article 26 of the ,/' Constitution which are subject to "public order, morality and health", it is not required to be dealt within detail mainly because no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or any beating of drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights ofothers including that of being not disturbed in c their activities. [24-G-H] . , ,... Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj & Ors. v. The State ofGujarat & Ors. , (1975) 1SCC11, relied on. 1. 5.

Due to urbanization or industrialization, the noise pollution may D in some area ofa 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, loudspeake. rs or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of E 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. 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 F framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced.

Hence the High Court has rightly directed implementation ofthe same. [25-C-E] Om Birangana Religious Society v. The State & Ors. , CWN (1995-96) Vol. 100 617, referred to. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 732 of2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 19. 4. 99 of the Madras High Court ,__/ in Crl. O. P. No. 61 of 1998. H ... G. Krishnan, A. K. Goel, R. Mohan, Revathy Raghavan, V. Prabhakar, A. Radhakrishnan, L. K. Pandey, G. Sivabalamurugan and V. G. Pragasam for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted. 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.

lt may cause interruption ofsleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high btood 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 l9. 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 resiC. ents 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 addre it etc. continuance of music sound or noise.

(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 ofannoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person who dweU 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 i-: in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable ofproducing or re-producing sound, or (b) the carrying of 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 (I) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (I), either rescind, modify or alter any such order: Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the S_! lid 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 Ors. v. The State ofGujarat "- CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K. K. R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSON. [SHAH, l. ] 25 and Ors. , [1975] 1 SCC 11.

After considering the various contentions, the Court observed that "no rights in an organized society can be absolute. Enjoyment of one's 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 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. B. S. Appeal dismissed. . ,;'.