AMITY LAW SCHOOOL NOIDA

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

TOPIC: NOISE POLLUTION IN RELATION TO
ARTICLE 25

SUBMITTED BY: ANANYA YADAV (8086)

TANISHQ SHARMA (80)

SECTION A

COURSE BBA LLB (HONS) 5 YEARS

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, we would like to thank to our supervisor of this project, Miss Soumya
Aggarwal for the valuable guidance and advice. She inspired us greatly to work in this project.
Her willingness to motivate us contributed tremendously to our project. We also would like to
thank her for showing us some example that related to the topic of our project. Besides, we
would like to thank the authority of AMITY UNIVERSITY for providing us with a good
environment and facilities to complete this project. Finally, an honorable mention goes to our
families and friends for their understandings and supports on us in completing this project.
Without helps of the particular that mentioned above, we would face many difficulties while
doing this.
ENVIRONMENT AND ITS EXPLOITATION

The exploitation of natural resources is the use of natural resources for economic growth,
sometimes with a negative connotation of accompanying environmental degradation. For
the use of products made of raw materials almost always results in greenhouse gas emissions,
pollution, and ecosystem damage and/or biodiversity loss. Products need energy and water, as
well as land for shipping, marketing and use. Natural resources such as land, air, water,
biodiversity and soil are the foundations of life. They ensure our current quality of life, but are
heavily over-exploited. This is because our economy is configured to operate on a growth basis;
as a result, resource consumption increased eightfold during the 20th century. The fact that
natural resources are finite and exist only in limited supplies and that the current use of natural
resources by the economy and society exceeds their capacity to regenerate continues to be
disregarded.

If the world's population continues to grow at the same rate and current lifestyles do not change,
global resource consumption will double again by 2050. This will jeopardise the long-term use
and livelihoods of future generations.

Demand for international resource policy

International environmental and resource policy began with the UN Conference on the Human
Environment that took place in Stockholm in 1972. The conference was also a reaction to the oil
crisis in the early 70s. This crisis provided clear evidence to industrialised countries that natural
resources are not infinite and that internationally coordinated measures need to be introduced in
response. Further oil crises and short-term, huge price increases for other resources have
bolstered this finding.

The Stockholm Declaration was the first time that principles were defined for the management of
natural resources. These principles called for sound management of natural, renewable resources
- such as air and water - and maintenance of their regeneration capacity. Furthermore, the
Stockholm Declaration also introduced the principle of sustainability for the first time by
positing that non-renewable resources - such as soil - should be used in such a way that they
would be preserved for future generations.

Green economy

The sustainable, long-term use of natural resources can be achieved by transitioning to a green
economy. To do so, it is critical that resources be used economically and sustainably, and that
efficiency be increased substantially through technological innovation.

The circular economy is an important paradigm of international dialogue on resources, which

should be integrated increasingly in closed cycles of use in accordance with the principles of the
circular economy. In this way, resources can be used several times, which markedly increases
their productivity. Statistically speaking, economic growth and prosperity are closely linked to
high resource use.

The long-term goal of the green economy principle is to definitively decouple economic growth
and resource consumption.

A circular economy should contribute to securing the foundations of life - instead of generating
prosperity at the expense of the environment. This is of central importance, particularly for
developing and emerging countries and their future development.
The Legal Aspects relating to Environmental Protection in India
Environmental law is a complex and interlocking body of treaties, conventions, statutes,
regulations, and common law that, very broadly, operate to regulate the interaction of humanity
and the rest of the biophysical or natural environment, toward the purpose of reducing the
impacts of human activity, both on the natural environment.
The topic may be divided into two major subjects:
(1) pollution control and remediation. (2) resource conservation and management. Laws
dealing with pollution are often media-limited – i.e., pertain only to a single
environmental medium, such as air, water (whether surface water, groundwater or
oceans), soil, etc. and control both emissions of pollutants into the medium, as well as
liability for exceeding permitted emissions and responsibility for clean-up. Laws
regarding resource conservation and management generally focus on a single resource
– e.g. natural resources such as forests, mineral deposits or animal species, or more
intangible resources such as especially scenic areas or sites of high archaeological
value – and provide guidelines for and limitations on the conservation, disturbance
and use of those resources.

● Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

● Environment Protection Act
● Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
● Wild life Protection Act
● Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

In India, environment was hailed highly in the ancient and medieval eras but till 1976 there were
no major legislations relating to environmental protection. It was the Stockholm Conference on
Environment and Development which exerted great influence on environmental policymaking
leading to an amendment of the Constitution, passage of important legislations such as the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and creation of institutions such as Central and State Pollution Control
Boards for implementing the provisions of the Acts.
The Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 further triggered the passage of comprehensive environment
legislation in 1986 and Public Liability Insurance Act in 1991. Besides this the principle of social
justice runs through and through the Constitution and the Courts apply this principle while
deciding environmental matters. By way of judicial activism Part III of the Constitution was
interpreted widely by Hon’ble Judges like P.N. Bhagwati, Kuldip Singh, V.R. Krishna Iyer, and
H.R. Khanna who recognized the ‘third generation rights’ (environmental rights) as a
constitutional mandate and applied them remarkably. Indian constitution, in this sense, is truly
unique in having such provisions in its fold.

Four years after the Stockholm Conference, the forty-second amendment to the Constitution of
India introduced certain significant provisions relating to environment and in this way became
the first country in the world to have provisions on environment in the Constitution. Indian
Parliament inserted two Articles, i.e. 48A and 51A in the Constitution of India in 1976, Article
48A of the Constitution rightly directs that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard forests and wildlife of the country. Similarly, clause (g) of Article
51A imposes a duty on every citizen of India, to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
The need to amend the Constitution by placing ‘environment protection’ as a specific entry in the
Concurrent List was canvassed by an expert Committee, appointed by the Central government,
while the rationale for such a step had been emphasized in the past.
The Constitution makes two-fold provisions. On one hand, it gives directive to the State for the
protection and improvement of environment and on the other, it casts duty on every citizen to
help in the preservation of natural environment. The cumulative effect of Articles 48A and 51A
(g) seems to be that the ‘State’ as well as the ‘citizens’ both are now under constitutional
obligation to conserve, perceive, protect and improve the environment. Every generation owes a
duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in
the best possible way. The phrase ‘protect and improve’ appearing in both the Articles 48A and
51A (g) seems to contemplate an affirmative government action to improve the quality of
environment and not just to preserve the environment in its degraded form.
Furthermore the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi’s casehas added
new dimensions to the concept of personal liberty of an individual. In other words,
environmental pollution which spoils the atmosphere and thereby affects the life and health of
the person has been regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the constitution. The
judicial grammar of interpretation has further broadened the scope and ambit of Article 21 and
now “right to life” includes the “right to livelihood”. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,the apex
court invariably spelt out the citizens’ ‘right to clean environment’ which was in turn derived
from the protection of life and liberty enumerated in Article 21. Justice Singh in the Ganga
Pollution Case declared in unequivocal terms that closure of industries may bring unemployment
and loss of revenue to the State, ‘but life, health and ecology have greater importance for the
people’.
Article 14 can be used as a potent weapon against governmental decisions threatening the
environment. The Courts in Indi, on various occasions, have struck down the arbitrary official
sanction in environmental matters on the basis that it was violative of Article 14 (Right to
Equality). It is pertinent to note that the Stockholm Declaration, 1972 also recognized this
principle of equality in environmental management and it called up all the world’s nations to
abide by this principle.

NOISE POLLUTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 25

Why was the issue of Noise Pollution raised with the Supreme Court?

(i) noise created by horns of engines, pressure horns in automobiles, loudspeakers, denting
painting of cars, particularly, in residential areas and from unauthorized premises being
prohibited;
(ii) use of loudspeakers in religious places such as temples, mosque, churches, gurudwaras and
other places being discontinued or at least regulated;
(iii) firecrackers burst during Diwali festival and on other occasions for fun or merry making
being prohibited completely, if the noise created exceeds certain decibels and being so regulated
as to prevent bursting during night hours.

• Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading freedom of speech
and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are
fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to
create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has
a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen.
• The judgment gives the sources of noise pollution and their ill effects.
• The judgment tells you how various countries have combated with the problem of noise
pollution.
• The Government of India framed and published Noise Pollution Control and Regulation Rules,
1999. On 11.10.2002 the Government of India brought in an amendment in the Rules. The
amendment empowered the State Government to permit use of loudspeaker or public address
system during night hours (between 10 pm and 12 pm mid-night) on or during the cultural or
religious occasions for a limited period not exceeding 15 days.
• According to The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 a loudspeaker or a
public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the
authority and the same shall not be used at night i.e. between 10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
• Loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipments or gadgets which produce offending noise
once detected as violating the law, should be liable to be seized and confiscated by making
provisioninthelawinthatbehalf.
• Diwali is the most important festival of India. The bursting of firecrackers during this period is
a wide spread practice. The unpredictable, intermittent and impulsive noise produced by bursting
of crackers all around, turns the festival of lights into cacophony of noise. People are unable to
even sleep due to this excessive noise pollution. Several people are injured due to the noise
producedbyfirecrackerseveryyear.
• The Court by restricting the time of bursting the firecrackers has not in any way violated the
religious rights of any person as enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution. The festival of
Diwali is mainly associated with pooja performed on the auspicious day and not with
firecrackers. In no religious textbook it is written that Diwali has to be celebrated by bursting
crackers. Diwali is considered as a festival of lights not of noises.
• The judgment gives references to various judicial opinions in India for eg 120. The Supreme
Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare
Assn., MANU/SC/0537/2000 held that the Court may issue directions in respect of controlling
noise pollution even if such noise was a direct result of and was connected with religious
activities.Itwasfurtherheld:-
"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 daytime or other
persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted.

JudgmentDirections.

II.Loudspeakers
1. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address
system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB (A) above the ambient
noise standards for the area or 75 dB (A) whichever is lower.
2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use
any sound amplifier at night (between 10. 00 p.m. and 6.a.m.) except in public emergencies. 3.
The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall not exceed by more than 5 dB
(A) than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the
boundaryoftheprivateplace.
FireCrackers
1. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers between 10 pm and 6
am. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to time on bursting of color/light emitting
firecrackers.
The focus of this judgment was on noise pollution caused by Loudspeakers and Firecrackers. I
wish the Apex Court had extended the 10pm deadline to 11.30 pm for the Navaratri festival. In
spite of having got commercialized it continues to be colorful and enjoyable festival. Moreover
in Mumbai people living in the suburbs reach home after 8.30 pm so the 10 pm deadline will
limit the time for enjoyment of festival celebrations.

I also hope that our Politicians do not invoke Secularism to prevent mosques from reducing the
decibel level of loudspeakers installed therein.

LANDMARK CASES

Case 1
The Supreme Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony
Welfare Assn., MANU/SC/0537/2000 held that the Court may issue directions in respect of
controlling noise pollution even if such noise was a direct result of and was connected with
religious activities. It was further held:-

"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 daytime 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, the old and
the 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 (sic sensitive) 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
industrialisation, urbanization and modernisation and is having many evil effects including
danger to health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency,
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.........
.....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 Nuisances Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation
and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced."

Case 2

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India MANU/SC/0285/1990 the Supreme Court reiterated the
need to create separate tribunals and asserted the need to appoint a body of experts to advice the
Government on environmental issues.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/1081/2003 this Court has emphasized the need for
creating environmental awareness amongst students through education.
We have referred to a few, not all available judgments. Suffice it to observe that Indian Judicial
opinion has been uniform in recognizing right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a
fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution and noise pollution beyond
permissible limits as an in-road on that right. We agree with and record our approval of the view
taken and the opinion expressed by the several High Courts in the decisions referred to
hereinabove.

Interim orders
During the course of the hearing of this case the Court had passed several interim orders keeping
in mind the importance of the issue.
The interim order dated 27/09/2001 deserves to be mentioned in particular, which directed as
under:
"(1) The Union Government, the Union Territories as well as all the State Governments shall
take steps to strictly comply with Notification No. G.S.R. 682(E) dated October 05, 1999
whereby the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 framed under the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 were amended. They shall in particular comply with amended Rule 89 of the said
Rules, which reads as follows:
Noise standards for fire- crackers
A. (i) The manufacture, sale or use of firecrackers generating noise level exceeding 125 dB (AI)
or 145 dB(C) pk at 4 meters distance from the point of bursting shall be prohibited.
(ii) For individual fire-cracker constituting the series (joined fire-crackers), the above mentioned
limit be reduced by 5 log 10(N) dB, where N = number of crackers joined together."
(2) The use of fireworks or fire-crackers shall not be permitted except between 6.00 a.m. and
10.00p.m. No firework or firecracker shall be allowed between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
(3) Firecrackers shall not be used at any time in silence zones, as defined in S.O. 1046(E) issued
on 22.11.2000 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In the said Notification Silence Zone
has been defined as: " Silence Zone is an area comprising not less than 100 meters around
hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as
such by the competent authority."
(4) The State Education Resource Centers in all the States and the Union Territories as well as
the management/principals of schools in all the States and Union Territories shall take
appropriate steps to educate students about the ill effects of air and noise pollution and appraise
them of directions (1) to (3) above."
These interim directions were also directed to be given wide publicity both by electronic and
print media. It was said that Doordarshan and other television channels shall give publicity to
these directions, at least once every day during prime time, during the fortnight before Dussehra
and Diwali. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was asked to bring these directions to
the notice of the general public through appropriate advertisements, issued in the newspapers.
The All India Radio was asked to broadcast these directions on prime time on FM and other
frequencies for information of the general public.
Due to the imposition of the restrictions on the bursting of firecrackers, several Interim
Applications came to be filed before the Court. The Court vide its interim order dated 10.9.2003
stated:-
"Through the I.A.s filed in this Court the following two suggestions deserve notice.
Firstly, it is submitted that certain local festivals and celebrations are accompanied customarily
by bursting of firecrackers which is at times at such hours as is not permissible under the order of
this Court dated 27.9.2001. Secondly, it is pointed out that the industry of fireworks may face
serious difficulty, even partial closure, on account of the directions made by this Court.
We have grave doubts if the above said considerations can come in the way of the enforcement
of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the citizens and people of India to live
in peace and comfort, in an atmosphere free from pollution of any kind, such as one caused by
noise and foul/poisonous gases. However still, without expressing any final opinion on the pleas
advanced, we allow the parties adversely affected the liberty to make representation to their
respective State Governments and the State Governments may, in their turn, if satisfied of the
genuineness of the representation made, invite the attention of the Govt. of India, to the
suggestions made."
We are happy to note that the initial reluctance to abide by the interim directions made by this
Court as displayed by the subsequent interlocutory applications soon gave way to compliance.
By and large the interim directions made by the Court were observed in compliance. Police and
civil administration remained alert during Diwali Festival to see that the directions made by the
Court were complied with. Resident Welfare Associations and school children gave a very
encourageous response who voluntarily desisted from bursting firecrackers in prohibited hours of
night and also bursting such firecrackers as produce high level noise.