Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Forum, Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution v. Union of India & Anr

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Oct 28, 2005
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of India
Seat of court
New Delhi
Judge
Lahoti
Bhan
Reference number
(2005) INSC 616
Language
English
Subject
Environment gen.
Keyword
Noise standards Noise emission Constitutional law Noise pollution
Abstract
This decision related to an earlier decision by the Supreme Court on the same matter, relating to noise pollution vis-a-vis the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The appellant submitted that this Court in its judgment dated July 18, 2005 had held that freedom from noise pollution was a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Noise interfered with the fundamental right of the citizens to live in peace and to protect themselves against forced audience. The Court had also held that as between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. no noise pollution could be permitted. The appellant submitted that that a regulation passed by the Government permitting the State Government to grant exemption from noise restrictions between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Solicitor General submitted that the power to grant exemption was a reasonable restriction placed in public interest. The relaxation was 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. The power would be exercised by the State Government by keeping in view the interest of the entire State population. The Supreme Court quoted a newspaper passage arguing that the use of loudspeakers could not be a must for performing any religious act. However, looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India, it was of the view that a limited power of exemption from the operation of the Noise Rules granted by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory power could not be held to be unreasonable. The power to grant exemption was conferred on the State Government. It could not be further delegated. It could be reasonably expected that the State Government would exercise the power with due care and caution and in public interest. However, the court made it clear that the scope of the exemption could not be widened either by increasing the number of days or by increasing the duration beyond two hours.
Full text
616.html

References

Cites