Bombay High Court
Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare … vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors 5 on 23 January, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:3288-DB
REPORTABLE
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4729 OF 2021
1. Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association ]
Having its office at Shop No.5, Alaknanda CHS Ltd., ]
Building No.14, Nehru Nagar, Kurla East, ]
Mumbai - 400 024. ]
Through its President Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni ]
Age 30 years, Occ. Self Employed ]
having address as 15/480 Akansha CHS Ltd., ]
Nehru Nagar, Kurla East, Mumbai - 400 024. ]
]
2. The Shivsrushti Co-op. Housing Societies ]
Association Ltd. ]
Having its office at Rajmata Jijabai CHS Ltd., ]
Ramkrupa, Plot No.23-24, Shivsrushti, ]
Kurla (East), Mumbai - 400 024. ]
Through its President Mr. Salil Rameshchandra ]
Age 60, Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Self Employed, ]
having address at A/6, Chirantan CHS Ltd., ]
Shivsrushti, Kurla East, Mumbai - 400 024. ] ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. The Commissioner of Police ]
Having Office at Crawford Market, ]
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. ]
]
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police ]
Zone-VI, Having office at 4th Floor, ]
Administrative Building, Fine Art Gallery ]
Complex, R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 074 ]
]
1/39
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police ]
Nehru Nagar Division, Having address at ]
Nehru Nagar Officer Quarter, ]
Building Nos.109/3663 & 3664, ]
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai - 400 024. ]
]
4. The Senior Inspector of Police ]
Chunabhatti Police Station, Having address ]
at D/1 Building, Devratna Nagar, ]
Swadeshi Mill Road, Sion, Chunabhatti, ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ]
]
5. The Senior Inspector of Police, ]
Nehru Nagar Kurla East Police Station, ]
Having address at Nehru Nagar Colony, ]
Kurla (East), Mumbai - 400 024. ]
]
6. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through its Principal Secretary having its ]
Office at Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 001. ]
]
7. MPCB (Maharashtra Pollution Control Board) ]
Kalpataru Point, 3rd & 4th Floor, ]
Opp. Cine Planet, Sion Circle, ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ] ... Respondents
Mr. Kaushik Mhatre a/w Mr. Chinmay Jawale i/b Ms. Reena Rechards for
Petitioners.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 6-State.
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for Respondent No.7-MPCB.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7th May 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd January 2025.
2/39
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
JUDGMENT ( Per : A. S. GADKARI, J.) :
–
1) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
for (i) appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus,
directing the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 to register F.I.R. against the offenders for
using loudspeakers in high volume without permission, violating the Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 [for short, “Noise Pollution
Rules”] and the provisions in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [for
short, “said Act”] and the other relevant laws thereof; (ii) for directing the
Respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to take appropriate action
against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for failure in discharging their official duty
and defying and non implementing and/or non complying with the Orders
dated 10th November 2012 and 16th August 2016 passed in Public Interest
Litigation No. 173 of 2010; and for other consequential reliefs.
2) Heard Mr. Mhatre, learned counsel for Petitioners, Mr. Yagnik,
learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 6-State and Mr. Shetye, learned counsel
for Respondent No.7-M.P.C.B..
3) Petitioners are the associations registered with the concerned
Authorities having their object to do development work for the locality, with
the aim to improve the general welfare and quality of life of the citizens, to
help the residents in the locality in solving the problems and issues being faced
by them. Petitioners are suffering from the noise pollution being created by
3/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
the concerned violators by using loudspeakers in high volume without legal
permission from the Authorities and also due to the casual approach and
inaction on the part of the Police Department, ignoring the Rules and law of
the land and in carrying out their duties. The Petitioners have therefore been
constrained to institute present Petition for enforcing their fundamental and
legal rights as the residents living in the area stated in the Petition since the
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have failed to protect their fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India to its citizens.
3.1) It is the case of the Petitioners that, the peace and tranquility in
their locality are being constantly disturbed through the use of microphones
and loudspeakers to recite ‘Azaan’ and other religious discourses by the
offenders on a daily basis. That, there are many masjids and madrasas
situated within the jurisdiction of Chunabhatti and Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East)
Police Stations. The said masjids have fixed with / placed loudspeakers,
microphones and/or amplifiers and the sound created therefrom is unbearable
as the decibel level of the said sound is not only excessive but beyond the
permissible decibel limits under the law. That, the said loudspeakers are being
used in the early morning hours i.e. as early as 5:00 a.m. as well as till the
midnight and many a times even past midnight. The loudspeakers are being
used five times a day for the purpose of Azaan (call for prayer regularly).
That, use of loudspeakers in the early hours i.e. at about 5:00 a.m. in the
morning are “prohibited hours” under the law and during the festival days,
4/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
they are operated till 1:30 a.m., which is beyond permissible limit for its use,
even if the permission is alleged to have been granted by the concerned
Authorities.
3.2) That, there are many masjids in the locality of Nehru Nagar and
Chunabhatti area. For example, the Petitioners have given names of three
masjids in the Chunabhatti Police Station jurisdiction and six masjids in the
Nehru Nagar Police Station jurisdiction, which according to them are causing
considerable amount of noise pollution in the locality of Petitioners. That, the
Bilali Masjid situated in Nehru Nagar, Kurla, area is surrounded by four
hospitals and schools and all are situated within 100 meters of radius. That, as
per the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, the said area is a silent zone and use of
loudspeakers thereof is completely prohibited.
3.3) The Petitioners made several complaints to the Police Control
Room on phone number 100, when they noticed the noise pollution from the
said loudspeakers were unbearable and in excessive volume for long hours
during the day and night time. However, the police attached to Chunabhatti
and Nehru Nagar Police Station did not take necessary steps to prevent the
said noise pollution for the reasons best known to them. That, many a times
the complaints were given via Twitter (a social networking site that allows
users to post, share, and reply to short messages) to Mumbai Police by tagging
the highest Police Authorities. However, there is no response or any legal
action taken by the Police Department in that behalf.
5/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc 3.4) That, on 4th July 2020 written complaint signed by six citizens was
given to the Senior Inspector of Respondent Nos.4 & 5, with a request to
register F.I.R. against the offenders for committing the offence of noise
pollution by violating Noise Pollution Rules and other laws. However, no
action is taken thereof. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, the
Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 i.e. the Police Authorities, refused to entertain their
complaints on the ground that, the said noise pollution caused by the use of
loudspeakers cannot be stopped, as the loudspeakers are fitted in a ‘masjid’ i.e.
a religious place and therefore police cannot stop the noise pollution, as it is a
sensitive matter related to religion and advised the Petitioners to withdraw the
complaint by expressing their inability to stop noise pollution.
3.5) It is the case of the Petitioners that, refusal by Police Authorities to
stop the noise pollution emitted from the loudspeakers fitted in the said
religious places is contrary to the Rules framed under the Noise Pollution Act.
That, use of loudspeakers without permission from the concerned Authority is
illegal. It is contended that, the use of loudspeakers and amplifiers five times
daily for 365 days without permission from the concerned Authorities against
all necessary and relevant Rules is illegal and objectionable.
3.6) That, the complaint of the Petitioners dated 30 th September 2020
to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nehru Nagar Division, with a request
to take action against the violators for creating noise pollution by using
loudspeakers without permission in high volume is not properly addressed.
6/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
The information obtained from the public information officer of Nehru Nagar
Division of Mumbai Police under the Right to Information Act, 2005, reveals
that, no permission was granted to any of the masjids to use loudspeakers in
the jurisdiction of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 Police Stations. The Petitioners also
addressed a written complaint dated 17 th December 2020 to the Commissioner
of Police, Mumbai i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein, however it was of no avail.
3.7) That, due to the use of loudspeakers / amplifiers in high volume
and the failure of police machinery to take necessary action against the
offenders by registering necessary cases against them, many citizens in the
Nehru Nagar area have fallen ill. The Police Officers attached to Respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 Police Stations gave illusive answers and failed to act upon the
complaints of the Petitioners and others. That, the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
Police Authorities and are bound to take cognizance of the complaints of
citizens. The non action by the Respondents itself speaks the poor state of
affairs of law enforcement agency and therefore the Petitioners are
constrained to file present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4) Shri Hemrajsingh A. Rajput, Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-VI, Chembur, Mumbai, i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein, has filed
Affidavits dated 8th February 2023 and 8th November 2023. In his Affidavits,
the said Respondent has stated that, after receipt of complaint dated 4 th July
2020 addressed to the Senior Police Inspector(s) of Nehru Nagar Police Station
7/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
and Chunabhatti Police Station, the police called the office bearers of
respective masjids, wherein the said persons stated that, two loudspeakers
which were installed on their mosques were removed and they maintained the
volume of sound in appropriate level. Their detailed statements were
recorded by the police. That, the Petitioners therefore posted a message on
their “Twitter Account” addressing to the Twitter Account of Bombay Police as,
“This loud noise is at 05.00 AM the one masjid near Kurla bus depot has been
silenced. I suppose action has been taken these twits I request you Mumbai
police to stop the loudspeaker in the kureshi nagar Kurla east”. That, the
Petitioners have thus appreciated the steps adopted by Mumbai Police. That,
in the year 2021, after completion of lockdown, necessary instructions in
respect of volume of loudspeakers were given to the office bearers of the
concerned masjids. That, the office bearers of (1) Sunni Kabrasthan Masjid
and (2) Jamait-Ul-Qureshi Masjid, which comes under the jurisdiction of
Chunabhatti Police Station had asked for permission to use the speakers on
their mosques and hence they were granted permission only for “Azaan” on
certain terms and conditions regarding decibels and time limit etc. as per the
Guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court. That, in the year 2022, the office
bearers of (1) Bilali Masjid, (2) Noorani Masjid, (3) Raza Jama Masjid, (4)
Sunni Raza Masjid, Railway Phatak, (5) Madersha Masjid Darool Hadis, which
comes within the jurisdiction of Nehru Nagar Police Station had asked for
permission to continue the speakers on their mosques. Hence, they were
8/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
granted permission on the condition of keeping the sound level upto
prescribed limits of decibels, as there is residential area in the vicinity. It is
stated that, the said permission was given on step by step basis and was
reviewed periodically as and when applied for the same. That, after receipt of
complaint dated 30th September 2020 addressed to the Senior Inspector of
Police, Chunabhatti Police Station, with a grievance of noise pollution caused
due to use of loudspeakers at religious structures, the Police Authorities
initiated action. The concerned Police Stations, i.e. Chunabhatti Police Station
and Nehru Nagar Police Station, conducted various meetings of office bearers
of the concerned masjids and apprised them about the permissible level of
sound as per the Guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court as well as
Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 under the Environment (Protection) Act and the
concerned persons were apprised of the permissible level of the sound within
the particular zones. That, with respect to the complaints made by Mr. Akshay
Kulkarni, necessary steps to check the decibel level of loudspeakers on the said
masjids was adopted by the police. The permission to continue with the
speakers on the mosques within the jurisdiction of Nehru Nagar Police Station
was granted on the condition of keeping the sound level upto prescribed limits
of decibel, because the said masjids are within the vicinity of residential zone.
The said permissions were granted as per the Guidelines of the High Court. In
para No.16 of Affidavit dated 8 th February 2023 the Respondent No.2 has
narrated various remedial measures for preventing noise pollution from the
9/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
masjids within the jurisdiction of the said two Police Stations.
4.1) In his Affidavit dated 8th November 2023, the Respondent No.2
has elaborately stated the steps adopted for implementing all the directions
issued by this Court in paragraph No. 94(iv) passed in PIL No. 173 of 2010. It
is stated that, two Police Officers were appointed at the said two Police
Stations to take cognizance of the noise pollution on the complaint(s) made by
the Petitioners and/or other persons. That, with regard to the issue involved
in the present Petition, noise pollution from the mosques within the
jurisdiction of Chunabhatti and Nehru Nagar Police Stations, from the period
of 2022-2023 till the date of affirming the said Affidavit, 92 times the spots
near the masjids were verified by the special team with the help of decibel
meter and the readings were accordingly recorded. It was revealed that,
almost all the days the noise levels was within the prescribed levels and
whenever it was revealed that, there was any violation as prescribed, the
concerned Police Station has taken action by submitting proposal to the
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for lodging complaints and for taking
cognizance by the concerned Court. That, on 8 th March 2023 it was found that
the officials of Bilali mosque had caused noise pollution and accordingly upon
a proposal to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, a complaint came to be
filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34 th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai,
bearing C.C. No. 34/SW/2023 and the trial Court has taken cognizance of it.
To the said Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has annexed a chart indicating the
10/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
decibel level recorded by the police on various occasions to support the
contentions that the decibel limit of noise within the periphery of the said
masjids was within prescribed limits. The Respondent No.2 has annexed to
the said Affidavit dated 8th November 2023, two reports dated 4 th January
2023 and 2nd November 2023 submitted by the concerned Police Officers
reporting that, Sunni Raza Masjid and Madarsa within the jurisdiction of
Nehru Nagar Police Station and Kabrasthan Masjid situated within the
jurisdiction of Chunabhatti Police Station had caused sound pollution on the
dates and time mentioned in the said reports.
5) After considering the fact that, the issue of noise pollution is
involved in the present Petition, by Order dated 5 th September 2023 we
directed the Petitioners to implead Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (for
short, “M.P.C.B.” and accordingly by an amendment, the M.P.C.B. is impleaded
as Respondent No.7.
5.1) Mr. Shetye, learned counsel appeared for Respondent No.7, MPCB
and with his usual fairness assisted this Court. He pointed out the relevant
provisions from the said Act and the Noise Pollution Rules. He tendered across
the bar a brief note in respect of Noise Pollution.
6) Mr. Mhatre, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners submitted
that, though the law relating to noise pollution has been well crystallized and
specific directions have been issued thereof, the Respondents Police
Authorities, are not implementing the provisions of the said Act and the Rules
11/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
framed thereunder in its proper letter and spirit. That, it is the reason the said
mosques are in blatant violation of law of the land are committing noise
pollution through the loudspeakers or public address system fixed in the
precincts of the said mosques. He submitted that, refusal by the police to stop
the noise pollution emitted from the loudspeakers fitted in the said mosques is
contrary to the Rules framed under the said Act, as without permission from
the Authority the use of loudspeakers is illegal. That, the use of
loudspeakers/amplifiers or public address system 5 times a day throughout the
year without permission from the Competent Authority against all norms is
illegal and highly objectionable. He invited our attention to the Orders dated
30th July 2014 and 28th August 2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Public
Interest Litigation No. 20 of 2015 (Filing No.39 of 2014), wherein this Court
has specifically directed that, if necessary permission is not obtained by the
users of loudspeakers for religious functions, then the police was directed to
take adequate steps for removal of those loudspeakers. It was directed that,
all the religious structures belonging to all the religions are not permitted to
use the loudspeakers without seeking permission of the Competent Authority.
He pointed out that, even while granting permission for use of loudspeakers,
specific terms and conditions have been imposed by the Competent
Authority / Police Department. Condition No. 10 thereof specifies that, the
police have right to revoke a licence in case of breach of terms and conditions
of the licence given to use loudspeakers. He submitted that, the Petitioners
12/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
reside in a residential zone and the decibel limit of noise ambient air quality
standard in respect of the noise or the decibel limit of noise in residential area
during day time is 55 decibels and at night time it is 45 decibels. That, all the
said mosques are emitting noise pollution throughout the day and night in
utter defiance of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed
thereunder. He submitted that, under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, the Police Authority is having power to prohibit continuance of music,
sound or noise and has also power, either to rescind, modify or alter any Order
issued by it granting permission for use of loudspeakers. That, in his Affidavit
dated 8th February 2023, the Respondent No.2 has admitted that, the
Petitioners reside in ‘Residential Area’ as contemplated under the schedule
appended to the said Rules. He submitted that, in his Affidavit dated 8 th
February 2023 the Respondent No.2 has made false statement that, the
loudspeakers on the said masjids / mosques were not in use at the time of visit
of the Police Authority. That, the reading recorded by the police, mentioned in
the chart annexed at page 93 to the Affidavit dated 8 th November 2023 by
Respondent No.2 is an eyewash. The Petitioners are the sufferers due to the
blatant violation of noise pollution emitted by the said mosques in their
vicinity. That, due to this continuance of noise pollution, the police are bound
to take action under Section 36 the Maharashtra Police Act read with Rule 7 of
the said Rules. He submitted that, the police are also duty bound to follow the
directions and/or guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Mahesh Vijay
13/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
Bedekar (supra). He submitted that, as the police have failed to take necessary
steps under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, necessary action
against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 be initiated by directing Respondent No.6.
He therefore prayed that, the present Petition may be allowed.
7) Mr. Shetye, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.7,
M.P.C.B. pointed out, the various provisions of the said Act. He submitted that,
in view of sub Rule (4) of Rule 5 of Noise Pollution Rules, 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 standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower. He submitted
that, as per the chart annexed to the Affidavit dated 8 th November 2023 filed
by the Respondent No.2, it appears that, the decibel limit of noise was within
the purview of Rule 5(4) of the said Rules. He submitted that, on the basis of
complaints lodged by the Petitioners and receipt of information from the
police, till date three complaints have been filed before the trial Court by the
Respondent No.7. The said three complaints are as under.
Sr. Case No. Name of the Parties
No.
1 Case No. M.P.C.B. Vs. Bilali Masjid, Jagruti Nagar, S.G. Barve
34/SW/2023 Road, Nehru Nagar, Kurla (E.), Mumbai.
2 Case No. M.P.C.B. Vs. Nurani Masjid, S.G. Barve Road, Nehru
52/SW/2023 Nagar, Kurla (E.), Mumbai.
3 Case No. M.P.C.B. Vs. Sunni Rajja Masjid & Madarsa, Sable
53/SW/2023 Nagar, Near Railway Phatak, Nehru Nagar, Kurla
(East), Mumbai.
14/39
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
In view of his submissions, he requested this Court to pass
necessary Orders in the interest of justice.
8) Mr. Yagnik, learned A.P.P. appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6
submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has filed Affidavits dated 8 th February
2023 and 8th November 2023. He submitted that, the charts annexed to the
Affidavit dated 8th November 2023 indicating the reading of noise level
recorded by the police at the time of prayers has been correctly stated. That,
the deviation in the noise level / ambient air quality mentioned therein is
within the parameters as prescribed under Rule 5(4) of the said Rules. Upon a
query by this Court, he fairly conceded to the fact that, the Reports dated 2 nd
November 2023 and 4th January 2023 (page 104 and 106 to Petition) are
infact submitted by the concerned Police Officer to the Respondent Nos.5 & 7
respectively. That, Sunni Raza Masjid and Madrasa so also the Kabrastan
Masjid had infact violated the provisions of said Rules by committing noise
pollution. He submitted that, this Court may suggest the Government to direct
all the persons using loudspeakers or a public address system to have inbuilt
auto fixation of decibel level. That, there is a little gray area in the Noise
Pollution Rules and in the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. That, even
if the application of a person is rejected, the concerned person may file an
application on successive occasions by giving undertaking and therefore such
applications are entertained. He submitted that, in the Affidavits of the
15/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
Respondent No.2 correct data is placed on record and nothing is suppressed
from this Court. He therefore requested this Court to pass necessary Orders in
the interest of justice.
9) In rejoinder to the arguments of the learned counsel for
Respondents, Mr. Mhatre, learned counsel for Petitioners submitted that, till
the suggestions given by the learned A.P.P. are implemented, the complaints
filed by the Petitioners be registered as F.I.R.. That, in view of the provisions of
Section 38 read with Section 136 of the Mumbai Police Act, a fine of
Rs.5,000/- can be imposed every day upon the violators i.e. the said masjids /
mosques mentioned in the Petition.
10) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of God (Full
Gospel) In India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2000 SC 2773 : 2000 AIR SCW 3089, while considering the
questions involved therein, in para Nos.2 & 12 has held as under :-
(2) 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
16/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
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.
(12) 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 v. The State of
Gujarat & Others, [(1975) 1 SCC 11 : AIR 1974 SC 2098]. 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
17/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
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”.
11) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re Noise Pollution –
Implementation of the Laws for Restricting use of Loudspeakers and High
Volume Producing Sound Systems : Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound
Pollution Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 2005 SC 3136 : 2005 AIR
SCW 3525, in para Nos.9, 10 & 86 has held as under :-
(9) Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal
liberty to all persons. It is well settled by repeated pronouncements of
this Court as also the High Courts that right to life enshrined in Article
21 is not of mere survival or existence. It guarantees a right of persons
to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life
which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth
living. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why the
life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures.
Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his
house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. No
one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which
would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours
or others. Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with
18/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable
man is nuisance. How and when a nuisance created by noise becomes
actionable has to be answered by reference to its degree and the
surrounding circumstances, the place and the time.
(10) 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. Nobody can be compelled to listen and
nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into
the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural aggression.
If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the
assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling
persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then
the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful,
comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article
19(1)A cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental
right guaranteed by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this
aspect. Two decisions in this regard delivered by High Courts have
been brought to our notice wherein the right to live in an atmosphere
free from noise pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions are Free Legal Aid Cell
Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and others, AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v.
Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR 1993 Kerala 1. We have
carefully gone through the reasoning adopted in the two decisions
and the principle of law laid down therein, in particular, the
19/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution. We find ourselves in
entire agreement therewith.
(86) A noise disturbance, as defined by the ordinance, is any sound
that is unpleasant, annoying, or loud; abnormal for the time or
location; and prejudicial to health, comfort, property, or the conduct
of business. Under the ordinance, it is unlawful to create a noise
disturbance anywhere during “quiet hours,” including multi-family
buildings and townhouses. The “nuisance provision” prohibits some
noise disturbances anywhere at any time.
12) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Forum, Prevention of
Envn. and Sound Pollution Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2005 AIR
SCW 5890, in para No.9 has held as under :-
(9) Looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India, we
think that a limited power of exemption from the operation of the
Noise Rules granted by the Central Government in exercise of its
statutory power cannot be held to be unreasonable. The power to
grant exemption is conferred on the State Government. It cannot be
further delegated. The power shall be exercised by reference to the
State as a unit and not by reference to districts, so as to specify
different dates for different districts. It can be reasonably expected
that the State Government would exercise the power with due care
and caution and in public interest. However, we make it clear that the
scope of the exemption cannot be widened either by increasing the
number of days or by increasing the duration beyond two hours. If
that is attempted to be done, then the said sub-rule (3) conferring
power to grant exemption may be liable to be struck down as violative
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We also make it clear that
20/39::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.docthe State Government should generally specify in advance, the
number and particulars of the days on which such exemption will be
operative. Such specification would exclude arbitrariness in the
exercise of power. The exemption, when granted, shall not apply to
silence zone areas. This is only as a clarification as, this even
otherwise, is the position of law.
13) The scheduled prescribed under Rule 3(1) and 4(1) of the Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 reads as under :-
SCHEDULE
[See Rules 3(1) and 4(1)]
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN RESPECT OF NOISE
Limits in dB(A) Leg*
Area Code Category of Area/Zone
Day time Night Time
(A) Industrial Area 75 70
(B) Commercial Area 65 55
(C) Residential Area 55 45
(D) Silence Zone 50 40Note –
1. Day time shall mean from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.
2. Night time shall mean from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.
[***] Omitted by S.O. 2555(E), dated 10-8-2017 (w.e.f. 10-8-2017)
4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above mentioned
categories by the competent authority.
*dB(A) Leq denotes the time weighted average of the level of sound in decibels
on Scale A which is relatable to human hearing.
A “decibel” is a unit in which noise is measured.
“A”, in dB(A) Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise
and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human ear.
Leq : It is an energy mean of the noise level over a specified period.
21/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc 14) Section 38 of the Maharashtra Police Act gives power to prohibit,
etc. continuance of music, sound or noise to the concerned Authority. Section
38 of the said Act reads as under :-
38. Power to prohibit, etc. continuance of music, sound or noise
(1) If the Commissioner or [Superintendent] is satisfied from the
report of an officer in charge 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 or injury to the public or to any persons who
dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order
issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any persons 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 the playing, beating, clashing, blowing
or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument,
appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of
[producing or reproducing sound], or
(b) the carrying on, in or upon, any premises of any trade,
avocation or operation resulting in or attended with noise.
(2) the authority empowered under sub-section (1) may, either on
its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an
order made under sub-section (1) either rescind, modify or alter any
such order.
Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the
said authority shall afford to the applicant an opportunity of
appearing before it either in person or by pleader and showing cause
22/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either
wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.
14.1) Section 136 of the Maharashtra Police Act prescribes penalty for
contravening rules, etc., made under section 38 of the Act. It states that,
whoever disobeys any direction lawfully made under section 38 or abets the
disobedience thereof shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to
[five thousand rupees] or with both.
14.2) Section 70 of the Maharashtra Police Act, prescribes enforcement
of orders issued under Section 37, 38 or 39 of the said Act. Section 70 of the
said Act reads as under :-
70. Enforcement of orders issued under sections 37, 38 or 39 –
Whenever a notification has been duly issued under section 37 or an
order has been made under section 38 or 39 it shall be lawful for
any Magistrate in a District or Police Officer to require any person
acting or about to act contrary thereto to desist or to abstain from so
doing, and in case of refusal, or disobedience, to arrest the person
offending. Such Magistrate or Police Officer may also seize any
object or thing used or about to be used in contravention of such
notification, or order as aforesaid, and the thing seized shall be
disposed of according to the order of any District Magistrate having
jurisdiction at the place.
(Underline emphasised)
14.3) Section 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act prescribes penalty for
23/39
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
opposing or not complying with directions given under Section 70. Section
149 of the said Act reads as under :
149. Penalty for opposing or not complying with direction given
under section 70 –
Whoever opposes or fails forthwith to comply with any reasonable
direction given by a Magistrate or a Police Officer under section 70
or abets opposition thereto or failure to comply therewith, shall, on
conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year but shall not except for reasons to be recorded
in writing by less than four months and shall also be liable to fine.
15) In the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., reported in 2016 (6) ABR 533, the Division Bench of this Court was
considering the issue, about failure of all the Authorities of State of
Maharashtra to implement the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules
2000. This Court has in detail considered the provisions of the said Act and
the Rules framed thereunder and apart from other decisions of various High
Courts, has in detail considered the aforenoted decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. It is held therein that, no religion has ever permitted violation
of law for celebrating religious festivals. That, in the said group of Petitions
which came up before the said Bench, it was demonstrated that, the Noise
Pollution Rules were mostly violated when there are political rallies and
religious festivals. It has been held that, use of loudspeakers is not an
24/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
essential part of any religion and therefore the protection under Article 25 of
the Constitution of India is not available. It is further observed that, we are a
secular State under our Constitution. That, after all the State of Maharashtra is
a land of father of our Constitution. That it is this State, which has taught
rational thinking to the nation. The Division Bench in the case of Mahesh
Vijay Bedekar (supra) after referring to and relying upon aforestated three
decisions and all other relevant decisions of various High Courts, in para Nos.
80, 81, 82 & 89 has held as under :
80) In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Apex
Court in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R.
Majestic (2000) 7 SCC 282 : (AIR 2000 SC 2773), no religion or
religious sect can claim that the of use loudspeakers or similar
instruments for prayers or for worship or for celebrating religious
festivals is an essential part of religion which is protected under
Article 25. We hold that there is no fundamental right to use
loudspeakers or similar instruments under Article 19(1)(a) of the
constitution. On the contrary, the use of such instruments contrary to
the Noise Pollution Rules will be a violation of fundamental rights of
citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as fundamental
right of citizens of not being forced to listen something which they do
not desire to listen.
81) As far as the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Noise
Pollution (V) In re, are concerned, we have already held that the
State is bound to comply with the said directions. We are fortified by
the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh v.
Commr. of Police (2015) 4 SCC 801 : (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 474,
25/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
paras 27 and 28).
“23. In our considered view, in the light of the authoritative
pronouncement rendered by this Court on the issue of noise
pollution in Noise Pollution (5), In re [Noise Pollution (5), In re,
(2005) 5 SCC 733] : (AIR 2005 SC 3136), it is not necessary for
this Court to again deal with the same issue except to issue
appropriate directions for its compliance.
24. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to ensure strict
compliance with the directions contained in paras 174 to 178 of
the judgment of this Court in Noise Pollution (5), In re [Noise
Pollution (5), In re, (2005) 5 SCC 733] , and for ensuring its
compliance, whatever remedial steps are required to be taken by
the State and their department(s) concerned, the same be taken
at the earliest to prevent/check the noise pollution as directed in
the aforesaid directions.” (Underline supplied)
82) We must record here that in the written submissions filed in PIL
No.173 of 2010, a fair stand has been taken by the State Government
as regards interpretation of Rule 6 of Noise Pollution Rules. Though
such a stand is taken, the perusal of the orders passed from time to in
this group of Petitions shows there is hardly any implementation
made by the State Government of the Noise Pollution Rules. In fact,
time and again, this Court was required to issue very stringent
directions to the State Government. The one of the main reasons for
the failure is that adequate numbers of meters for measuring noise
levels are not available with the State. The Noise Pollution Rules
came into force in the year 2000. The orders passed in PIL No.173 of
2010 will reveal that till August 2016, the State Government has not
even procured the requisite number of meters. Therefore, this Court
was required to issue a direction to the State Government to collect26/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.docdata from various police officers as regards their requirement of
meters. The order dated 4th January, 2016 records that the learned
Government Pleader made a statement that there were very few
meters available in the State and in fact the requirement of the State
was of 1843 meters. It shows that there is never any serious effort
made by the State Government for implementation of the Noise
Pollution Rules for last 16 years. Therefore, under the order dated 4 th
January, 2016 a direction was issued to the State Government to
grant necessary approval for acquiring 1843 meters. Time of three
months was granted to procure 1843 meters. The said time expired
on 3rd April, 2016. This Court found that no steps were taken to
procure the meters within the stipulated time and that is why this
Court was compelled to issue a notice of contempt to Shri K.P. Bakshi,
Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department. Notwithstanding the
disposal of the main Petition, the notice of contempt will remain
pending as the direction to acquire requisite number of meters will
continue to operate. Even as of today, the meters have not been
procured. The learned AGP tendered across the Bar a letter dated 11 th
August, 2016 addressed by the Additional Director General of Police
to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department. The said
letter records that a period of 60 days will be required for supply of
the said meters. In short, the meters will be available only at the end
of September, 2016. Right from the year 2014, very elaborate interim
orders were passed by this Court in PIL No.173 of 2010 including
detailed orders passed on 13th March, 2015 and 24th June, 2015.
Notwithstanding the said orders, even requisite number of meters are
not yet procured. We must note that these orders were passed for
implementation of the directions issued by the Apex Court and the
Noise Pollution Rules. The approach of the State Government has
27/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
been very casual. The result of this gross delay in procuring meters is
that during two important festivals of Dahi Handi and Ganapati of
the year 2016, adequate number of meters will not be available with
the police machinery. This inaction has to be deprecated.
89) The provision is similar to Rule 8 of Noise Pollution Rules. Under
Section 38 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the power is conferred to
the Commissioner of Police and Superintendent of Police to order
prevention or prohibition of music sound or noise. On receiving a
report/complaint of nuisance created by music or sound or
instrumental noise, the Officer incharge of the concerned Police
Station the same communicate the said report immediately to the
Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police to enable to
the said authority to take immediate action under Section 38 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
15.1) In para No. 93 thereof, the Court has summarized its
important/main conclusions and in sub-para Nos. (ii), (vi), (vii), (xv), (xvii),
(xx) & (xxi) has held as under :-
(ii) In view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, a loudspeaker or a public address
system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission
from the authority as prescribed in clause (c) of Rule 2 of the said
Rules. We clarify that if a license for use of loudspeaker or public
address system is required under any other provision of law such
as Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, or the Rules framed thereunder, a
loudspeaker or public address system shall not be used without
obtaining such a license as well. Even after grant of written
permission, the person holding the permission is duty bound to28/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.docmaintain the noise level as prescribed by the Schedule and sub-
rules (4) and (5) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution Rules.
(vi) The noise level at the boundary of a public place defined under
clause (i) of Rule 2 will have to be maintained as provided in sub-
rule (4) of Rule 5, even if a license is granted under sub-rule (1) of
Rule 5 to use loudspeaker in the public place. By way of
illustration, we may state that in case of an open ground covered
by clause (i) of Rule 2 in respect of which a license has been
granted under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 which is situated in the
residential area, in view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5, maximum level
of noise during the day time and night time can be 65 dB(A) and
55 dB(A) respectively.
(vii) Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 5, if privately own sound system and
sound producing instrument is used in private place, at the
boundary of private place, the noise level cannot be more than 5
dB(A) above the prescribed noise standard specified for the area as
provided in the Schedule. Thus, in case of residential area, in the
day time, the noise level cannot exceed 60dB(A) at the boundary
of private place.
(xv) Even if a loudspeaker or public address system (as distinguished
from privately owned sound system) is used within the precincts of
the hospitals, educational institutions and Courts, wherever
permission under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 is needed, the same shall
be mandatory and condition precedent for its use. Needless to add
that even if a permission is granted and if such instruments are
used in the precincts of hospitals, educational institutions and
courts, the same are subject to all other provisions of the Noise
Pollution Rules and, therefore, noise levels at the boundary shall be
as provided in sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 5 which are applicable
29/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
to the silence zones. The prohibition in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 6
will not apply to completely covered and closed premises within
silence zone, but the said premises will be governed by all the
Rules incorporated in the Noise Pollution Rules including sub-rules
(4) and (5) of Rule 5.
(xvii) In view of Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act,
whoever fails to comply with or contravenes provisions of the
Noise Pollution Rules, all orders or directions issued thereunder is
liable for penalty. Such noncompliance or contravention attracts
imprisonment for a term which may extends to five years and fine
which may extends to one lakh. Thus, noncompliance of the Noise
Pollution Rules or contravention of the Noise Pollution Rules shall
attract penalty under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act
and therefore, it is the duty of all the Authorities of the State to
ensure that the offences under Section 15 are registered.
(xx) The power under Section 8 shall be in addition to the power of
the Commissioner or the Superintendent of Police as the case may
be under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and the
power of the District Magistrate to take action in accordance with
Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(xxi) We hold that all places of worship of all religions are bound by
the provisions of the Noise Pollution Rules and no religion or sect
can claim fundamental right of using loudspeakers or public
address systems or instruments creating noise as a part of right
conferred by Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India.
15.2) The decision in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra) has
attained finality as the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra
30/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
against the said decision has been dismissed.
15.3) The principles of law enunciated by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra) have been referred to,
relied upon and affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay
Marathe Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2018 (4) Mah.L.J. 770.
15.4) The law relating to Noise Pollution as contemplated under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000 is well elucidated by this Court in the decision of Mahesh
Vijay Bedekar (supra), as reproduced above and has attained finality in view
of the dismissal of the SLP preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Its repetition is hereby avoided for the sake of brevity.
16) Perusal of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 indicates that,
there is no provision for lodgment of First Information Report and it is the
reason Section 19 prescribes that, no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the Authorities
mentioned therein. Section 15 of the Act provides for penalty or
contravention of provisions of the said Act, Rules, Orders and directions issued
under the said Act.
17) In view thereof, though the Petitioners have prayed for a direction
for lodgment of a crime, in the absence of any provision specifying the same
under the said Act and/or Rules, we are unable to accede to the request of the
Petitioners. However, taking into consideration the vital issue involved in the
31/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
present case, i.e. noise pollution caused on account of use of microphones and
loudspeakers to recite ‘Azaan’ or other religious discourses in daily basis in the
vicinity of the Petitioners and not following the directions issued by this Court
in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra), we have entertained this
Petition.
18) Mumbai is a cosmopolitan City, obviously there are persons of
different religions in every part of the city. The very fact that the Petitioners
have filed the Petition to direct the State authorities to implement the Orders
of the Apex Court as well as several Orders of this Court would evince that,
there has been a deliberate violation of the Orders.
Noise is a major health hazard on various aspects. No one can
claim that his rights are affected in any manner if he is denied a permission to
use loudspeaker. It is in public interest that such permissions should not be
granted. By denying such permissions, rights under Article 19 or 25 of the
Constitution of India are not at all infringed. Use of loudspeakers is not an
essential part of any religion.
19) It is the specific case of the Petitioners that, the said masjids /
mosques mentioned in the Petition are committing noise pollution thereby
disturbing the peace and tranquility in their locality, which is being constantly
disturbed during the use of microphones and loudspeakers to recite ‘Azaan’
and other religious discourses by the offenders on a daily basis. It is the
further contention of the Petitioners that, since the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are
32/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
willfully and deliberately not taking any action against the perpetrators of the
noise pollution and violators of law, therefore the trustees or managers of the
said mosques are brazenly on a daily basis committing noise pollution in the
vicinity of the Petitioners.
20) It may be noted here that, to his Affidavit dated 8 th November
2023, the Respondent No.2 has annexed two reports dated 4 th January 2023
(page 106) and 2nd November 2023 (page 104). The said two reports are
pertaining to Kabrastan Masjid situated within the jurisdiction of Chunabhatti
Police Station and Sunni Raza Masjid situated within the jurisdiction of Nehru
Nagar Police Station. As per the said two reports, the said masjids were
emitting noise level upto 98.7 decibels and 79.4 decibels respectively. The
said reports are submitted by the Police Officers attached to the concerned
Police Stations. It is thus apparent that, there is substance in the allegations of
the Petitioners and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the grievance of
the Petitioners that, the loudspeakers / public address systems put up by the
said mosques are creating noise pollution. As noted earlier, the law relating to
noise pollution and the steps to be adopted by the law enforcing agencies is
well elucidated by this Court in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra).
21) According to us, it is the bounden duty of the Respondent Nos.1
to 6 that, they must and should enforce the law by adopting all the necessary
measures, as may be prescribed by the provisions of law. In a democratic
State, there cannot be a situation that, a person / group of persons/
33/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
association of persons would say that, it will not follow or adhere to the law of
the land and the law enforcers would be meek or silent spectators to it.
22) It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Church of God (Full Gospel) In India (supra) that, 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. That, 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.
23) As per the schedule appended to the Noise Pollution Rules, the
ambient air quality standards in respect of noise i.e. the decibel limit in
Residential Area during ‘day-time’ must be at the most 55 decibels and during
‘night-time’ must be 45 decibels. According to us, this limit of 55 or 45
decibels is a cumulative limit of all the loudspeakers / voice amplifiers / public
address systems or other sound emitting gadgets. Thus, in the vicinity of the
Petitioners if one or more number of religious places are using loudspeakers or
public address systems, it is not the individual ambient air quality limit of 55
decibels or 45 decibels, but it is in all the cumulative sound level of all the
loudspeakers / voice amplifiers / public address system or other sound
emitting gadgets, which are in use at one point of time. The law does not
permit that, every individual loudspeaker will emit 55 or 45 decibels of noise
34/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
aggregating to more than what is prescribed under the said Rules. That would
amount to frustrating the intention of Legislature.
24) As held in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra) in addition to
the Police sending the complaint(s) to the Respondent No.7 for lodging it
before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the Police are bound to take action
under Section 38 read with 136 of the Maharashtra Police Act on every default
or breach committed by the user of loudspeakers / voice amplifiers / public
address system or other sound emitting gadgets, if it is notice either by them
or brought to their notice by any citizen that, the Noise Pollution Rules are
being violated.
25) The Police under the Mumbai Police Act are having powers under
Sections 38, 70, 136 & 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act and it is necessary
for the Respondents-Police Authorities to use it for proper implementation of
the Environment (Protection) Act and the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000.
25.1) In our view under Section 136 of the Mumbai Police Act, an
imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- a day or Rs.18,25,000/- for 365 days and
payment thereof may perhaps not be a deterrent for those blatantly violating
the said laws of the land. The violators do it as a matter of right and the
complainants, often individuals are hapless and helpless victims of these
obnoxious use of loudspeakers and/or amplifiers.
25.2) We take a judicial note of the fact that, generally people / citizens
do not complain about the things until it becomes intolerable and a nuisance.
35/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
We are of the view that, without requiring identification of the complainant,
the Police Authorities must act on such complaints, more so to avoid such
complainants being targets or ill will and developing hatred.
26) We therefore direct the State to consider to direct all the
concerned to have inbuilt mechanism to control decibel level in their
loudspeakers / voice amplifiers / public address system or other sound
emitting gadgets used by any religious place / structure / institution,
irrespective of religion. The State may also seriously consider to issue
directions for calibration and/or auto-fixation of decibel limit of
loudspeakers / voice amplifiers / public address system or other sound
emitting gadgets used by any or all the religions in their respective places of
prayers or worship.
26.1) The Respondent No.1 also to direct all the concerned Police
Officers to use the decibel level measuring mobile application for checking the
decibel levels. These applications are easily available on internet and would
assist in monitoring the noise levels. Thus, loudspeakers and amplifiers or
other equipment or gazettes which produce offending noise, one detected as
violating the law or in defiance of the directions issued by the concerned
Police Authorities can seize the said equipment/s under Section 70 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. The Police are bound to implement Sections 38, 70,
136 and 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act, as may be required in view of the
fact situation of each case.
36/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc 27) In the case, the Petitioner lodges a complaint with the local Police
Station, it will be the duty of the concerned Police Station to consider the said
complaint as per the provisions of law under the Maharashtra Police Act and
the Environment (Protection) Act and to forward the said complaint to the
Respondent No.7. The Police may also withdraw permissions granted to the
said trusts / institutions for use of loudspeakers, if repeated violation of the
provisions of said Noise Pollution Rules are brought to their notice.
28) The Petitioners or such complainants of the noise pollution in the
Petitioners area are entitled to file a representation with the Respondent No.2,
Dy. Commissioner of Police, who will consider the representation of such
concerned person and pass appropriate Orders / directions in accordance with
law after notice to all concerned parties against whom allegations for making
noise pollution are made.
29) The Respondent No.1 – The Commissioner of Police to give
directions to all his subordinates and may caution the concerned persons
violating the law in the following manner :-
(1) Once a citizen of any locality raises a complaint with the Police
against any religious structure or otherwise causing noise
pollution, the Police will without seeking / verifying identification
of the person complaining thereof and if has received
identification shall not disclose the identity of the complainant to
the offender and to adopt following steps :-
37/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
(a) At the first instance caution the alleged offender.
(b) On a subsequent occasion, complaint/s received against
same offender, the Police to impose a fine under Section
136 of the Maharashtra Police Act, on the concerned
religious structure and may recover it from its Trustees
and/or Manager and warn the Trustees and Manager/s
with further stricter action in case of receipt of complaints
in future.
(c) If any further complaint/s are received pertaining to the
same religious structure on the next occasion, the Police
shall adopt steps as contemplated under Section 70 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, to seize the loudspeakers and/or
amplifiers from the concerned religious structure and
thereafter may proceed to cancel the licence issued in
favour of the concern structure permitting to use
loudspeakers and/or amplifiers.
(2) As noted above, the police are bound to take action under
Sections 38, 70, 136 and 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
against the violator/s of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 and in
addition thereof, to also file complaint/s under the provisions of
Environment (Protection) Act, against the Trustees or Manager/s
responsible for administering or running the concerned religious
38/39
::: Uploaded on – 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
osk J-WP-4729-21.doc
place and all those persons responsible for operating the
loudspeakers/amplifiers.
30) Petition is partly allowed and disposed off in above terms.
( SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.01.23 16:37:58 +0530 39/39 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 23:21:24 :::
[ad_1]
Source link