Forum, Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution v. Union of India & Anr País/Territorio India Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Oct 28, 2005 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Supreme Court of India Sede de la corte New Delhi Juez LahotiBhan Número de referencia (2005) INSC 616 Idioma Inglés Materia Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Emisiones acústicas Derecho constitutional Normas sobre ruido Contaminación acústica Resumen 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. Texto completo 616.html Referencias Cites In Re: Noise Pollution Restricting use of loudspeakers Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | India | Jul 18, 2005 Palabra clave: Emisiones acústicas, Derecho constitutional, Normas sobre ruido, Contaminación acústica Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA