CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA A

v.

K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

AUGUST 30, 2000

[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

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

C

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. D

Complaints were also made to Poiice by the respondent Noise level surveys

conducted by the Board

in the vicinity of the 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 E

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 F

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. G

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

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A can pass orders to protect and preserve every fundamental right of citizens

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

B disturbing the peace of others 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

C 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

D 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

E 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 of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency,

hearing

loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue,

F

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)

G 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

of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule

5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The rules

are unambiguous,

H clear and speak for themselves. Considering the same, it cannot be said that

..

/

-

I

'.--

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

17

.,.

A the directions issued by the High Court are in any manner illegal or

erroneous. [22-A-C]

Appa Rao, MS. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1995) - 1 L.W.

Vol. 115 319, relied on.

1.4. With

regard to the rights under Article 25 or Article 26 of the

B

' 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

of others including that of being not disturbed in c

their activities. [24-G-H] .,

,... Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj &

Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors., (1975) 1SCC11, relied on.

1.5. Due to urbanization

or industrialization, the noise pollution may D

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,

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

of the 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

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..

A 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

B 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

C 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

D 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

E

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.

F

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

G 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

of sleep, 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

H affects animals alike. The extent of damage depends upon the duration and

. ..

..

-

+!

CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSON. (SHAH, J.) } 9

the intensity of noise. Sometimes it leads to serious law and order problem. A

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 l 9 .4.1999 passed B

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

C

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 D

Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police-respondents Nos 5 and

6 respectively. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer

of the Board­

respondent No.4 herein on 23.5.1996

addre<;sed a letter to respondent No.5,

the Superintendent

of

Police, Chengai MGR District (East), Chennai, to take

action on the complaint. On 12.6.1996, respondent No. 4 again addressed a E

letter to respondent No. 5 enclosing therewith the analysis report of the

Ambient noise level survey conducted in the vicinity

of the appellant's

Church hall which disclosed that noise pollution was due to plying

of vehicles

on the Madhavaram High Road. Respondent No. I gave representations to

various officials

in this regard. Thereafter respondent No.I-Welfare Association

filed Criminal

O.P. No. 61 of 1998 before the High Court of Madras for a F

direction to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to take action on the basis of the letter

issued by respondent No.4.

In the High Court, it was contended by learned

counsel for the Church that the petition was filed with an oblique motive

in

order to prevent a religious minority institution from pursuing its religious

activities and the Court cannot issue any direction to prevent the Church from

G

practising its religious beliefs. It was also submitted that the noise pollution

was due to plying

of vehicles and not due to use of loudspeakers etc.

The learned Judge referred to the decision

of the High Court in Appa

Rao,

MS. v. Gavernmento/Tamil Nadu andAnr., (1995-1) L.W. (Vol. 115) 319)

where certain guidelines have been laid down for controlling the noise pollution.

H

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In Appa Rao's case, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court after

considering the contentions raised by the parties and decisions cited therein

and also to the provisions

of Sections 41 and 71 (a) of the Madras City Police

Act, 1888 and Section

IO of the Madras Town Nuisance Act; 1989 has issued

directions to the Government for controlling the noise pollution and for the

use

of amplifiers and loudspeakers. In the said case, the Court has observed

B that the grievances of the petitioners, who have complained with regard to

the noise pollution were fully justified and the authorities concerned were

turning or made to tum by the higher powers a Nelson's eye to the violation

of rules and regulations in these matters. The Court also considered copy of

an

article which appeared in the August, 1982 Issue of 'Science Today' and

C a copy of the ICMR Bulletin of July, 1979 containing a Study on Noise

Pollution in South India wherein it is pointed out that noise pollution will lead

to serious nervous disorders, emotional tension leading to high blood-pressure,

cardiovascular diseases, increase in cholesterol level resulting

in heart attacks

and strokes and even damage to foetus.

D The learned

Single Judge also referred to other decisions and directed

respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to follow the guidelines issued in Appa Rao's case

(Supra) and to take necessary steps to bring down the noise level to the

permitted extent by taking action against the vehicles which make noise and

also by making the Church to keep their speakers at a lower level.

He further

E held that the

Survey report submitted by the Board would go to show that

the Church was not the sole contributor

of the noise and it appeared that the

interference

of noise was also due to plying of

vehicles. The learned Judge

pointed out that there was nothing

of malice and malicious wish to cause any

hindrance to the free practice

of religious faith of the Church and if the noise

created by the Church exceeds the permissible decibels then it has to be

F abated. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the Church.

Mr. G. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant,

contended that the High Court has failed to note that the two survey reports

of the Pollution Control Board clearly attributed the noise pollution in the area

G in question to the vehicular traffic and not to any of the activities of the

appellant-Church and, therefore, direction issued in respect

of controlling the

noise ought not to have been extended

in respect of the appellant-Church;

that the High Court has oyerlooked that the right to profess and practice

Christianity

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

H the appellant-Church; and that the judgment relied upon by the High Court

-

)=

-

......

CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSON. [SHAH, J.) 21

in Appa Rao 's case (Supra) did not empower the authorities to interfere with A

the religious practices of any community.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents contended

that the appellant-Church has deliberately tried to give religious colour to this

cause

of action as respondent no. I -Welfare Association is consisting of

members belonging to all

religions as found by the High Court. It is contended B

that even if the contention of the appellant-Church-that the noise created by

it

is within the prescribed limit-is taken as it is, the order passed by the High

Court will not in any way prejudice the right

of religious practice of appellant

because the order

of the High Court is only with regard to reducing the noise

pollution in that area. It

is further contended that the High Court can pass C

orders to protect and preserve a very fundamental right of citizen under

Article

19(1 )(a) of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the judgment of

Calcutta High Court in

Om Birangana Religious Society v. The State and

Ors., [CWN 1995-96 (Vol. 100) 617] wherein the Court dealt with a similar

matter. The questions posed by the Court for consideration were-whether the

public are captive audience or listener when permission is given for using D

loud-speakers in public and the person who is otherwise unwilling to bear the

sound and/or the music or the communication made by the loud-speakers, but

he

is compelled to tolerate all these things against his will and health? Does

it concern simply a law and order situation? Does it not generate sound

pollution? Does it not affect the other known rights

of a citizen? Even if a E

citizen is ill and even if such a sound may create adverse effect on his

physical and mental condition, yet

he is made a captive audience to

listen.

The High Court held that:

. "It cannot be said that the religious teachers or the spiritual

leaders who had laid down these tenets, had any way desired the use

F

of microphones as a means of performance of religion. Undoubtedly,

one can

practi~e, profess and propagate religion, as guaranteed under

Article 25(1)

of the Constitution but that is not an absolute right. The

provision

of Article 25 is subject to the provisions of Article 19(l)(a)

of the Constitution.

On true and proper construction of the provision

I~

of Article 25(1), read with Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot u

be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear any thing which he

does not like or which he does not require."

Thereafter; the High Court laid down certain guidelines for the Pollution

Control Board for grant

of permission to use loudspeakers and to maintain 1 noise level in West Bengal. H

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In our view, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant deserves to be rejected because the direction given by the learned

Judge to the authorities

is only to follow the guidelines laid down in Appa

Rao's case decided by the Division Bench

of the same High Court on the

basis

of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the Madras Towns Nuisance

B Act, 1889. It is also in conformity with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and

Control) Rules,

2000 framed by the Central Government under the provisions

of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of the Environment

(Protection) Rules,

1986. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control)

Rules,

2000 provides for ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for

different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed to the rule which

C is as under:-

"Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise"

Area Code

Category of Area/ Limits in dB(A) Leq.

Zone Day Time Night Time

D (A) Industrial Area 75

70

(B) Commercial Area 65 55

(C) Residential Area 55 45

(D) Silence Zone 50 40

E Note:-(I) Day time shall mean from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm.

(2) Night time shall mean from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.

(3) Silence zone is defined as an area comprising not less than 100

metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. The

silence zones are zones which are declared as such by the

F competent authority.

G

H

(4) Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four

above-mentioned categories by the competent authority.

Other relevant rules for controlling noise pollution are: -

4. Responsibility

as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures.-

(!) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient

air quality standards

in respect of

noise as specified in the

Schedule.

(2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise ..

-

...

'

/

CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSON .. [SHAH, I.) 23

pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient A

air quality standards in respect of noise.

5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/public address system. -

(I) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used

except after obtaining written permission from the authority.

B

(2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at

night (between

10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises

for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms,

community halls and banquet halls.

6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.

Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits

any

of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions

of the Act:-

(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,

(ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical

or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or

(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of

c

D

a nature to attract crowds. E

7. Complaints to be made to the authority.

(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise

standards by

10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding

columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the authority.

F

(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against

the violator

in accordance with the provisions of these rules and

any other law

in force.

8.

Power to prohil;>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

of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort

G

or injury to the public or to any person who

dweU or occupy H

24

A

B

c

D

E

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

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 of producing 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.

F 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

G 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

H Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Ors. v. The

State of Gujarat "-

-

-

. ,;'.

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 A

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 B

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

c

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 D

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 E

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.

F