Holding

The Court held that the freedom to practice religion under Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute and may be reasonably restricted by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, so the High Court’s direction to control the Church’s noise was lawful.

Summary

The Church of God (Full Gospel) used loudspeakers, drums and other musical instruments during its prayers, prompting a complaint by the K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association alleging noise pollution. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board’s survey attributed most of the noise to vehicular traffic, but the Madras High Court nonetheless directed the authorities to enforce noise‑control guidelines and ordered the Church to keep its sound levels within the limits prescribed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The Church appealed, contending that such directions infringed its fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that no religion requires worship to be performed by means that disturb the peace, and that the right to religious freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health, order and morality under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution Rules. Consequently, the High Court’s order was deemed valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a religious community can claim a right to create noise pollution on the ground of religion
Whether the use of loudspeakers, drums and microphones for religious worship that disturbs the neighbourhood is permissible
Whether Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution can be restricted by environmental and noise‑control regulations
Whether the High Court’s direction to control noise from the Church is valid under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution Rules
Whether the attribution of noise to vehicular traffic exempts the Church from complying with noise‑control measures

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000s. Rule 3, s. Rule 5

Subjects

noise pollutionfreedom of religionenvironmental lawconstitutional lawArticle 25Article 26Article 19(1)(a)public healthpublic orderloudspeakersdrumsreligious practiceSupreme Court

Judgment

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, I

hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue,
gastrointestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance
F 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
'.--
CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA v. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSON . 17
.,.
the directions issued by the High Court are in any manner illegal or A
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,

D
cardiovascular diseases, increase in cholesterol level resulting in heart attacks
and strokes and even damage to foetus.

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

E Note:- (I) Day time shall mean from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm.
50 40
/
...
'

(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.

(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: -
G
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.
H (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.
c
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:-
D
(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
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. G
(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
or injury to the public or to any person who dweU or occupy H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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,
B
(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
c 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
D 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
E 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
c
the noise pollution may in some area of a city/town might be exceeding

- permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that would not be a ground
for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use of
voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and,
therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the 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.
F
B.S. Appeal dismissed.

-

. ,;'.