Holding

Sub‑rule (3) is constitutionally valid as a reasonable restriction, provided the exemption is limited to two hours, a maximum of fifteen days per year, is not further delegated, and is specified in advance by the State Government.

Summary

The Forum, an environmental NGO, challenged the constitutional validity of sub‑rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which permits State Governments to relax night‑time loud‑speaker restrictions for up to fifteen days a year during cultural or religious festivals. The petition argued that the exemption violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by allowing noise during the sleep hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Supreme Court examined whether the power to grant exemption could be delegated, whether its scope could be expanded, and whether the exercise of the power could be arbitrary. The Court held that the sub‑rule is a reasonable restriction and constitutionally valid, provided the exemption is limited to two hours, a maximum of fifteen days, is not further delegated, and is specified in advance by the State as a whole, excluding silence‑zone areas. The Court cautioned that any widening of the exemption would render the rule violative of Articles 14 and 21. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s decision affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the power to grant exemption under the sub‑rule can be further delegated to lower authorities.
Whether the scope of the exemption (duration and number of days) can be expanded beyond the limits prescribed in the rule.
Whether the exercise of the exemption power must be subject to prior specification to avoid arbitrariness.

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. Section 25(2) clause (b), s. Section 3(2) clause (ii), s. Section 6(1)
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000s. Rule 5

Subjects

Noise PollutionEnvironmental LawFundamental RightsArticle 21Article 14Loudspeaker RegulationState PowerExemptionPublic HealthReligious FreedomSilence Zones

Judgment

A FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVN. AND SOUND POLLUTION
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 28, 2005

B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.]

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rule 2000-Rules 5 (3), 5(2)
-Imposition of restriction on the use of Loud-speakers/public address system
C at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.)-Relaxation by inserting Sub-Rule
(3) to Rule 5-Constitutionality of-Held: Constitutional-Constitution ofIndia,
1950-Articles 14 and 21.

In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rule 2000, the Central Government imposed restriction on the
D use of loud speakers/public address system at night (between 10.00 p.m.
to 6.00 a.m.). By 2002 Amendment, sub-rule (3) was inserted in Rule 5
which granted permission to the State Government to relax the
applicability of sub-rule (2) and grant exemption therefrom between 10.00
P.M. and 12 mid-night for maximum of 15 days during a calender year.

E Appellant-Forum unsuccessfully filed writ petition before High Court
challenging the constitutional validity of sub-rule (3). Hence the present
appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

F HELD: Looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India, a
limited power of exemption from the operation of the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rule, 2000 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
G 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, the scope of the exemption cannot be widened

H 966
FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVN. AND SOUND POLLUTION v. U.OJ. [LAHOTI, CJ.] 967

either by increasing the number of days or by increasing the duration A
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. The State
Government should generally specify in advance, the number and
particulars of the days on which such exemption will be operative. Such B
specification would exclude arbitrariness in the exercise of power.
[971-D, E, F[
'
Noise Pollution v. in Re, [2005[ 5 SCC 733, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3735 of2005.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.2003 of the Kerala High
Court in O.P. No. 38066 of 2002 (S).

G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, Jitendra Sharma, Mukul Rohtagi,
U.U. Lalit, Shyam Divan, M.K.S. Menon, M.K. Michael, Sandeep Narain,
(AC), Anil Kumar Mittal, Ms.Anjali Jha, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, D
B.K. Mishra, Ms. Apama Jha, V. Madhukar, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms. Indra Sawhney,
, Ms. Deeksha Mishra, P. Parmeswaran, K.R. Sasiprabhu Ravindra K. Adsure,
Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Ms. Sunita B. Rao, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Anil
Katiyar, Chandra Prakash, Vijay Panjwani, R. Ayyam Perumal, Sewa Ram,
V. Madhukar, Dr. A. Francis A. Julian, A. Mariarputham, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, E
V.K. Sidharthan, P.V. Yogeswaran, S. Ravi Shankar, Ms. Hemanandini Deori,
M.A. Chinnasamy, Braj Kishore Mishra, .R. Nedumaran, Ms. Mamrata Chopra
and S. Beno Bencigar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) F
of sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (i) and clause (b) of sub-section
(2) of Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29/
I 986), read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 the
Central Government made the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Noise Rules') which have come into G
force w.e.f. 14th February, 2000.

Rule 5 of the Noise Rules reads as under:

"5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system:-

(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A after obtaining written pennission from the authority.
; ..
(2) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used at
night (between I0.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for
communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community
halls and banquet halls.
B
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State
Government may, subject to such tenns and conditions as are necessary
to reduce noise pollution, pennit use of loud speakers or public address
systems during night hours (between I 0.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight)
on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited
c ~uration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year."

Sub-rule (3) has been inserted in the present fonn by the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 with effect from I Ith
October, 2002. The constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) was put in issue by
the appellant herein by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. By
D its Judgment dated 14th March, 2003, the High Court has directed the petition
to be dismissed and the sub-rule has been held to be intra vires. The aggrieved
petitioner has filed this petition by special leave.

On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that this Court in its
E Judgment dated July 18, 2005 Noise Pollution (V), in Re'.; (2005] 5 sec 733,
has held that freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Noise interferes with the fundamental right of
the citizens to live in peace and to protect themselves against forced audience.
This Court has also held that as between I 0 p.m. and 6 a.m. which is the time
for the people to sleep and have peace, no noise pollution can be permitted.
F The appellant also submits that the impugned sub-rule (3) which pennits the
State Government to relax the applicability of sub-rule (2) and grant exemption
therefrom between I 0 p.m. and 12 midnight, is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution and runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Noise
Pollution (V), in Re. (supra).

G The learned Solicitor General has defended the vires of the said sub-
rule (3) and also the Judgment of the High Court. In his submission, the
power to grant exemption is a reasonable restriction placed in public interest.
The relaxation is for a period of 2 hours only and that too for a maximum
of 15 days in all during a calendar year confined to cultural or religious
H occasions. Since the power has been conferred on the State Government by
FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVN. AND SOUND POLLUTION v. U.O.l. [LAHOTI, CJ] 969

the Central Government it cannot further be delegated. The power would be A
exercised by the State Government by keeping in view the interest of the
entire State population.

Our attention was invited to Government of Goa Order No. 7/4/98/
STE/DIR/Part-1/1116 published in the Official Gazette, Government of Goa,
Extraordinary No. 5, dated 5th February, 2005, wherein exercising the powers B
conferred by the said sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, the Government of Goa has
specified nine days, in advance, on which the exemption granted by sub-rule
(3) of Rule 5 would be available. The Government has reserved the power
to notify six more days for cultural/religious festive occasions. Similarly, our
attention was invited to Notification No. NP 200/24/3 (Part 3) dated 7th C
April, 2003 whereby the Maharashtra Government exercising the power under
sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 has notified 12 specific days, in advance, on which
such relaxation shall be permissible and remaining 3 days have been reserved
to be notified, on demand from the local people for religious festivals and
cultural programmes.
D
A query was raised that once the power to grant exemption is allowed,
often the exemption becomes the rule. Exemptions tend to be granted as a
matter of course and are thus often misused. Another query raised during the
course of hearing was that in the event of the vires of the said sub-rule (3)
being upheld, nothing prevents the Government from amending the Noise
Rules and enhancing the number of days on which the power to grant E
exemption would be available or increasing the permissible hours ofrelaxation
and that would again defeat the very object of preventing noise pollution.
The learned Solicitor General responded by submitting that the impugned
sub-rule has very limited operation which is reasonable and may not be
interfered with by the Court, subject to certain further restrictions. The learned F
Solicitor General submitted that the Government does not propose to widen
the scope of the exemption either by increasing the number of days or by
enhancing the duration of hours of exemption. In spite of the exemption
being granted, the Government would take care to see that the noise level
does not exceed prescribed decibel limits.
G
Certain intervention applications were also filed. One application is by
nine organizations/bodies situated in Pune, seeking impleadment at the hearing
in the appeal, so as to support the impugned judgment of the High Court.
There were other prayers for interventions seeking directions for widening
the scope of exemption under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. We make it clear at the H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A very outset, as we did in Noise Pollution (V), in Re. (supra) that we are not
concerned with any religion or religious practices; we are concerned only
with the fundamental right of the citizens and the people to protect themselves
against noise pollution and forced audiences. We are inclined to quote the
following passage from Times oflndia (The Speaking Tree) dated 7.10.2005:

B "Those who favour the use ofloudspeakers plead that it is a devotee's
religious duty enjoined by the shastras to make others listen and
enjoy the singing of bhajans. Azaan too is necessary to inform others
that it is time for namaz, a job assigned to the muezzin of the mosque.

Wait a minute. There were no loudspeakers in the old days. When
c different civilisations developed or adopted different faiths or when
holy books were written to guide devotees, they did not mention the
use of loudspeakers as being vital to spread religious devotion.

So the use of loudspeakers cannot be a must for performing any
religious act. Some argue that every religion asks its followers to
D spread its teachings and the loudspeaker is a modem instrument that
helps to do this more effectively. They cannot be more wrong. No
religion ever says to force the unwilling to listen to expressions of
religious beliefs.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna: "This secret gospel of
E the Gita should never be imparted to a man who lacks penance, nor
to him who is wanting in devotion, nor even to him who lends not
a willing ear; and in no case to him who· finds fault with Me ... He
who, offering the highest love to Me, preaches the most profound
gospel of the Gita among My devotees, shall come to Me alone; there
F is no doubt about it" (18.67-68).

The gospel should be delivered to only those who enjoy listening to
it and who have the patience to do so. It shall never be forced upon
those who do not want it. The holy Qur'an says, "Lakum Deenokum
Wa/ia Deen "-your religion and belief is for you and my religion
G and belief is for me. Each stay happy with her own religion and
belief. It never says, make others listen to the gospel of your faith by
using loudspeakers.

A similar instance is found in Biblical literature. The Gospel according
to Saint Luke says: "When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he
H gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure
FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVN. AND SOUND POLLUTION v. U.0.L [LAHOTI, CJ] 97 J
••
diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to A
heal the sick.

He told them: 'Take nothing for the journey-no staff, no bag, no
bread, no money, no extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay
there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, shake
the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony B
against them'. So they set out and went from village to village,
preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere" (9.1-10).

The earlier Supreme Court judgment banning the un-solicited use of
loudspeakers at inconvenient times is in conformity with religious
tenets." c
The above-said passage appeals to us and in our opinion very correctly
states the factual position as to the objective of several religions and their
underlying logic.

Looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India, we think that D
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 E
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 F
to be struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We
also make it clear that the 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 G
of law.

Before parting, we would like to clarify further that we may not be
understood as diluting in any manner our holding in Noise Pollution (V), in
Re. (supra). We are also not granting any exemption or relaxation in favour H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of anyone by our verdict. We are only upholding the constitutional validity
of the Noise Rule framed by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory
powers.

Subject to the observations made hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed
and the Judgment of the High Court is affirmed.
B
All the intervention applications be treated as disposed of.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.