Holding

Noise pollution beyond permissible limits infringes Article 21, and the Court may issue binding directions under Articles 141 and 142 to regulate loudspeakers, firecrackers and other noise sources, subject to reasonable limits on free speech.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by engineer Anil K. Mittal after a 13‑year‑old girl died because loudspeaker noise prevented her cries from being heard. The petition sought stringent enforcement of laws restricting loudspeakers, firecrackers, vehicular horns and other high‑volume sound systems. The Court examined whether noise pollution infringes the fundamental right to life under Article 21 and held that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and cannot justify creating a public nuisance. It issued comprehensive directions: ban sound‑emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., regulate firecrackers by chemical composition with mandatory labeling, allow higher‑noise firecrackers only for export, limit loudspeaker noise at public boundaries to 10 dB(A) above ambient or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower, prohibit musical instruments and amplifiers at night, restrict vehicle horns at night, and mandate seizure of offending equipment. The Court also ordered awareness programmes, involvement of NGOs, and the preparation of ambient noise standards by the Central and State governments. The matters were disposed of with the directions remaining in force.

Issues considered

The extent to which noise pollution violates the right to life under Article 21.
Whether the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) can be invoked to justify loudspeaker use.
The appropriate regulatory method for firecrackers – noise‑level testing versus chemical‑composition standards.
Whether restrictions on firecracker use infringe religious freedom under Article 25.
The permissible time limits and decibel limits for loudspeakers, musical instruments, and vehicle horns.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981s. 2(a)
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. 119, s. 120
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 133
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 3
Explosives Act, 1884
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 268, s. 290, s. 291
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000s. 3, s. 5, s. 89

Subjects

Noise pollutionArticle 21Article 19Fundamental rightsPublic nuisanceEnvironmental lawLoudspeakersFirecrackersVehicle hornsAmbient noise standardsSeizure and confiscationPublic awareness

Judgment

A IN RE: NOISE POLLUTION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS FOR
RESTRICTING USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS AND HIGH VOLUME
PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS
)

JULY 18, 2005

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

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21 and 19(/)(a)-Right to live
in freedom from noise pollution-Held, is a fundamental right protected by
C Article 21-Noise pollution beyond permissible limits is an in-road on that
right-Right of freedom of speech and expression under Art.19(/)(a) is not
absolute and cannot be pressed to defeat Art.21.

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, /9BJ-Section 2(a)-
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Sections 2(c) and 2(b)-Noise
D pollution-What is-Held: Disturbance produced in environment by
undesirable sound ofvarious kinds is "noise pollution"-Words and Phrases-
"Noise" and_ "pollutant"-Meaning of

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Section 3-Environmenl-
(Protection) Rules, 1986-Rules 3, 5 and 89-Noise Pollution (Regulation ·
E and Control) Rules, 2000-Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989-Rules 119
and 120-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 141 and 142:

Noise Pollution-Jn context to fire-crackers-Directions/guidelines issued
by Supreme Court under Arts. 141 and 142 of the Consti~ution-Held:
Bursting of sound emitting firecrackers completely banned between 10 pm
F and 6 am but no restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light emitting
firecrackers-Fire-crackers to be evaluated on basis of chemical composition
rather than on basis of noise levels-Such method to be followed unless and
until replaced by a better system-Manufacturers to mention on box of each
fire cracker details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the
G requirements laid down by Department o/Explosives (DOE)-However fire
crackers manufactured for export can bear higher noise levels subject to
conditions. Noise Pollution-In context to loudspeakers/public address system,
musical instruments and privately owned sound system-Directions/guidelines ·
issued by Supreme Court under Arts. 141and142 of the Coristitutioh-Held:
Noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public
H 624
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. .t HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 625

address system or any other noise source is being used not to exceed 10 A
dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever
is lower-No one to beat drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or
sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between 10. 00
p.m. and 6.a.m.) except in public emergencies-Peripheral noise level of
privately owned sound system not to exceed by more than 5 dB(A) from the
ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the B
boundary of the private place-States to make provision for seizure and
confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipments found
creating noise beyond permissible limits.

Noise Pollution-In context to vehicular noise-Directions/guidelines
issued by Supreme Court under Arts. 141and142 of the Constitution-Held:
c
Horn not to be used at night between 10 PM to 6 AM in residential area
except in exceptional circumstances.

Noise pollution-Hazardous effects of-Awareness about-Held: Needs
to he created-Suitable chapters can be added in text-books for children D
an~ youth at the initial/early level of education-Special talks and lectures
be organised in schools-Police and civil administration be trained to
understand various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on the
subject-State to play an active role in this process~Resident Welfare
Associations, Service Clubs and Societies engaged in preventing noise
pollution to be actively involved by the local administration-Special public E
awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial
occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, to be carried out.
J Noise pollution-Ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for
different areas/zones-Central Govt./State Govt. asked to take steps for laying
down such standards and notifying the authorities where it has not already
F
been done.

' Certain issues of far-reaching implications in day-to-day life of the
.J people in India relatable to noise pollution vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in
-t Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in its wide sweep by the G
constitutional courts of the country were raised in the present matters.

Though, the sweep of hearing in these matters was very wide, the
principal thrust was directed towards noise created by firecrackers,
loudspeakers used-by political parties, at religious places and on religious
and social occasions or festivals. In addition some of the intervenors inter- H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

, A alia sought for noise created by horns of engines, pressure horns in
automobiles, denting painting of cars, particularly, in residential areas and
from unauthorized premises being prohibited.

Consequently several questions, such as what is noise; what are its
adverse effects; whether noise pollution runs in conflict with the fundamental
., B rights of the people and what relief can be allowed by way of directions issued
in public interest arose for consideration.

Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal
C liberty to all persons. It is well settled 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 oflife which go
to make a person's life meaningful, complete and worth living. 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
D 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 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
E surrounding_ circumstances, the place and the time. {635-F-H]

1.2. 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
F has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody
can be compelled to listen znd nobody can claim that he has a right to make
his voice trespass into the ea_rs 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 un~illing
G persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person .>
speaking ;s. violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and
pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(l)A cannot be pressed
into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21.
[636-B-EJ

H Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt.
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 62 7

of NCT of Delhi and Ors, AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v. A
Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR (1993) Kerala 1, approved. (636-E]

Om Birangana Religious Society v. State, 100 CWN 617, referred to.
(645-D]

2. The word noise is derived from the Latin term "nausea". Section 2{a) B
of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, includes noise in
the definition of 'air pollutant'. "Pollution" is a noun derived from the verb
"pollute". Section 2(c) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines
"environmental pollution" to mean the presence in the environment ~f any
environmental pollutant Section 2 (b) of the said Act defines "environmental
pollutant" to mean any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such c
concentration as may be, or tends to be injurious to environment. Thus, the.
disturbance produced in our environment by the undesirable sound ofvarious
kinds is called" noise pollution". (636-H; 637-B-F; 638-A]

P.S. Jaswal and Nisitha Jaswal:Environmental Law, 2nd Edition, 2003,
p.327; Parivesh Newsletter: Central Pollution Control Board, December,
D
1996; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 16, 1968, p.558 and Chambers 20th
Century Dictionary, 1987 Edition, referred to.

3.1. The Indian Judicial opinion has been uniform in recognizing the
right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected
E
~- by Article 21 of the Constitution and noise pollution beyond permissible limits
as an in-road on that right.
~
Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal v. The State, AIR (1958) Punjab 11; Bhuban
Ram and Ors. v. Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas, AIR (1919) Calcutta 539; Rabin
Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1985) Cal. 222; People United for F
better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1993) Cal. 215;
Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner of police,
Calcutta, AIR (1998) Cal. 121; Appa Rao, MS. v. Govt. ofT.N., (1995) 1 LW
319 (Mad); P.A. Jacob v. the Superintendent ofPolice, AIR (1993) Kera la 1
and Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt.
ofNCT of Delhi and Ors, AIR (2001) Delhi 455, approved. G
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare
Assn., (2000) 7 SCC 282; Charan Lal Sahu v; Union of India, AIR (1990) SC
1480 and MC. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 571, relied on.

II"
Ivour Heyden v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1984) Cd LJ (NOC) 16, H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A referred to.

3.2. Though some laws have been enacted to control and prevent noise
pollution, yet, compared with the legislation in developed countries, India is
still lagging behind in enacting adequate and scientific legislations. There is
a need to have one simple but specific and detailed legislation dealing with
B several aspects referable to noise pollution and providing measures of control
therefor.

3.3. There is an equal need of developing mechanism and infrastructure
for enforcement of the prevalent laws. Those who are entrusted with the task
of enforcing laws directed towards controlling noise pollution, must be so
C trained as to acquire expertise in the matter of fighting against noise pollution
by taking preventing and deterrent measures both. They need to be equipped
with the requisite equipments such as audio meters as would help them in
detecting the level of noise pollution more so when it crosses the permissible
limits and the source thereof. [678-E]
D
3.4. There is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardo11s
effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in India the people generally lack
consciousness of the ill effects which noise pollution creates and how the
society including they themselves stand to benefit by preventing gener,tion
and emission of noise pollution. The target area should be educational
E institutions and more pal'.'ticularly schools. The young children of
impressionable age should be motivated to desist from playing with
firecrackers, use of high sound producing equipme~ts and instruments on
festivals, religious and social functions, family get-togethers and celebrations
etc. which cause noise pollution. Suit~ble chapters can be added into text-books
F which teach civic sense to the children and teach them how to be good and
responsible citizen which would include learning by heart of various
fundamental duties and that would obviously include learning not to create
.noise pollution and to prevent if generated by others. Holding of special talks
and lectures can be organized in the schools to highlight the menace of noise
pollution and the role of the children in preventing it. For these purposes the
G State must play its role by enlisting support and cooperation of non-government
organizations (NGOs). [678-G, H; 679-A-B]

3.5. Similar awareness needs to be created in police and civil
administration by means of carrying out a special drive to make them
understand the various measures to curb the problems and the laws on the
H subject. Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), service clubs (such as Rotary
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OFLOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMs629

. . International and Lions International) and societies engaged in preventing A
noise pollution as part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively
involved by the local administration. Festivals and ceremonies wherein
fireworks and crackers are customarily burst can be accompanied by
earmarking a place and time wherein and when all the people can come
together and witness or view a show of fireworks dispensing with the need of
crackers being burst in the residential areas and that too which is done B
without any regard to timings. The manufacturers can be encouraged to make
such fireworks as would display more the colours rather than make noise.
[679-C-E)

3.6. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fl amplifier C
systems has to be regulated even the playing of high sound instruments like
drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond
tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law enforcing agencies must be
equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level
meters conforming to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare
necessity. (679-F) D
3.7. Preventive measures need to be directed more effectively at .the
source. To illustrate, the horns which if fitted with the automobiles would
-create hawking sound beyond permissible limits, should not be allowed to be
manufactured or sold in the market as once they are available they are likely
to be used. [679-G) E
. 3.8. Loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipments or gadgets which
produce offending noise once detected as violating the law, should be liable to
bC seized and conrascated by making provision·in the law In that behalf.
[679-H; 680-A)
F
3.9. Prohibiting the sal~ of such firecrackers which create noise
pollution by producing noise beyond permissible limits is practically
unmanageable. A better option certainly is to prescribe the chemical contents
and composition for each type of firecrackers to effectively curb noise
pollution. [680-B)
G
Mou/ana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West
Bengal, AIR (1999) Calcutta, 15, referred to. ·

4.1. There should be no difficulty in issuing directions and ensuring
compliance to the. extent as indieated hereinabove. Wherever there are
difficulties·they have to be sorted out in the larger public interest. H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 4.2. Following directions are issued:

I. Firecrackers

i. On a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of
evaluating fireci:-a~kers on the-basis of noise level~, and the other where the
B firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of chemical composition, the latter
method is more practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be
followed unless and until replaced by a better system.

ii. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake necessary
research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical formulae
C for each type or category or class of firecrackers.. The DOE shall specify the
proportion/composition as well as the ~aximum permissible weight of every
chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.

iii. The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two
D categories- (i) Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii) Colour/light emitting
firecrackers.

iv. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting
firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose
restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light' emitting firecrackers.
E v. Every manufacturer shall on .the box of each firecracker mention
details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as laid
down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention
the details or in cases where the contents o( the box do not match the chemical
formulae as stated on the box, the manufacturer may be held liable.
F
vi. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured bearing
higher noise levels subject to the following.conditions: (i) The manufacturer
should be permitted to do so only when he has an export order with him and .
not otherwise;(ii) The noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to
the noise standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to
G be exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers should have a
different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) They
must carry a declaration printed thereon something.like 'not for sale in India'
or 'only for export to country AB' and so on. (680-D-H; 681-A-DJ

n. Loudspeakers
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE.111. HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 631

i. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker A
or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not
exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A)
which'ever is lower.

ii. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or
sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between 10. 00 B
p.m. and 6.a.m.) except in public emergencies.

iii. The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall not
exceed by more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air quality standard specified
for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private place.
c
III. Vehicular Noise No horn should be allowed to .be used at night
(between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential area except in exceptional
circumstances.

IV. Awareness
D
i. There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous
effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text-books
which teach civic sense to the children and youth at the initial/early level of·
education. Special talks and lectures be organised in the schools to highlight
the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children and younger E
generation in preventing it. Police and civil administration should be trained
to understand the various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on

.. the subject.

ii. The State must play an active role in this process. Resident Welfare
Associations, service Clubs and Societies engaged in preventing noise F
pollution as a part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved
by the local ~dministration.

iii. Special _public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals,
events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used,
need to be carried out. G
The abovesaid guidelines are issued in exercise of power conferred on
this Court under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution oflndia. These
would remain in force until modified by this Court or superseded by an
appropriate legislation. (681-D-H; 682-A-D)
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A V. Generally

i. The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of
loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipments as are found to be
creating noise beyond the permissible limits.

B ii. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
makes provision for specifying ambient air quality standards in respect of
noise for different areas/iones, categorization of the areas for the purpose of
implementation of noise standards, authorizing the authorities for enforcement
and achievement of laid down standards. The Central Government/State ''
C Governments shall take steps for laying down such standards and notifying
the authorities where it has not already been done.

5. Though, the matters are closed consistently with the directions as
above issued in public interest, there will be liberty of seeking further
directions as and when required and in particular in the event of any difficulty
D arising in implementing the directions. [682-D-G)

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 72 of 1998.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of lndia.)

WITH
E
C.A. No. 3735 of2005.

F
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, (NP), Jitendra Sharma,
(AC), N.N. Goswami, Rajiv Dutta, G.L. Sanghi, P.N. Mishra, R. Mohan, Sandeep
Narain, (AC),Anil Kumar Mittal, Mrs. Anjali Jha, M.K.S. Menon, M.K. Michael,
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, P. Panneswaran, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,
-
Dr. A. Francis Julian, Ms. A. Subhashini, D.S. Mahra, Ashok Bhan, Ms.Varuna
Bhandari Gugnani, Vijay Panjwani, K.R. Sasiprabhu, {NP), Jagjit Singh Chhabra,
{NP), Sanjay V.S. Choudhury, Ms. Niraj Kumar, V.K. Sidharthan, P.V. Yogeswaran,
S. Ravi Shankar, Ms.Yamunah Nachiarand M.A. Chinnaswamy with them for
G the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. These two matters before us raise certain issues of
far-reaching implications in day-to-day life of the people in India relatable to
H noise pollution vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LO\JDSPE. /Ir. HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 633

of India as interpreted in its wide sweep by the constitutional courts of the A
country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but several
intervenors and interlocutory applications enhanced the scope of hearing and
the cases were heard in a very wide perspective centering around Article 21
of the Constitution. Several associated and incidental issues have also been
. gone into.
B
Facts in WP.(C) No:72/98

CWP No. 72/98 is filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession
moving the Court pro bono publico. The immediate provocation for filing the
petition. was that a 13 year old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in C
newspapers of January 3, 1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due
to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker in the neighbourhood. The victim
girl, later in the evening, set herself ablaze and died of 100% bum injuries.
The petition complains of noise created by the use of the loudspeakers being
used in religious performances or singing bhajans and the like in busy
commercial localities on the days of weekly offs. Best quality hi-fi audio D
· systems ar.e used. Open space, meant for use by the schools in the locality,
is let out for use in marriage functions and parties wherein merry making goes
on with hi-ti amplifiers and loudspeakers without any regard to timings.
Modem residents of the locality organize terrace parties for socializing and
use high capacity stereo systems in abundance. These are a few instances
of noise pollution generated much to the chagrin of students taking E
examinations who find it utterly difficult to concentrate on studies before and
during examinations. The noise polluters have no regard for the inconvenience
and discomfort of the people in the vicinity. Nojse pollution has had its
victims in the past and continues to have victims today as well. The petiiioner
seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court so that there may not be p
victims of noise pollution in future. The principal prayer is that the existing
laws for restricting the use of loudspeakers and other high volume noise
producing audio-video systems, be directed to be rigorously enforced.

Facts in C.A. No. 3735of2005 (Arising out o/S.l.P.(C) No.21851103)
G
Leave granted.

The Government of India framed and published Noise Pollution Control
and Regulation Rules; 1999. On 11.10.2002 the Government oflndia brought
in an amendment in the Rules. The amendment empowered the State
Government to permit the use of loudspeaker or public address system during H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A night hours (between IO pm and 12 pm) mid-night on or during the cultural
or religious occasions for a limited period not exceeding 15 days. Vires of this
amendment were put in issue by the appellant submitting that the provision
is not accompanied by any guidelines and is capable of being misused to
such an extent that the whole purpose behind enacting the Rules itself may
be defeated. The High Court of Kerala found the petition devoid of any merit
B and directed the petition to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, this petition llas
been filed by special leave.

The Civil Appeal and, in particular, the writ petition raise issues of wide
ranging dimensions relating to noise pollution and the implications thereof.
C Taking cognizance of the matters as public interest litigation, the Court vi de
its order dated 6.4.98, directed the cause title of the petition filed.by Shri Anil
Kumar Mittal to be amended as "In re. Noise Pollutionlmplementation of the
Laws for Restricting Voice of Loudspeakers and High Volume Producing
Sound Systems". The Court also appointed ~hri iltehder Sharma, Senior
Advocate and Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate to appear as Amicus Curiae. Both
D the learned counsel were present in the Court and accepted the assignment.
Unfortunately, Shri Pankaj Katra, Advocate expired during the pendency of
the proceedings. Shri Sandeep Narain Advocate has appeared in his place
and assisted the Court.

The Union of India and the Central Pollution Control Board have not
E oppos.ed the prayer made in the writ petition and the appeal and have rather
supported the writ petitioner. Valuable inputs have been provided by the
Central Pollution Control Board in the form of pleadings, authentic publications,
research documents and other papers. The Union of India, while not opposing
the relief sought for by the petitioner, has pointed out several practical
F difficulties in completely regulating and where necessary, eliminating noise
pollution.

Though, as we· have already noted, the sweep of hearing in ·th~se
matters has been very wide, the principal thrust of the writ petitioner and the
learned Amicus has. been di~ected fowards noise created by firecrackers,
G loudspeakers used~by political parties, at religious places and on religious
and social occasions or festivals. Hindu Bokta Jana Sabai, tamil Nadu Fireworks
and Amorces Manufacturers Association, Universal Society Performance, All
India Federation of Fireworks Association, Indian Fireworks Manufacturers
Association and some individuals have sought for interventio!ls. It is not ...
necessary to notice the contents of the intervention applications in. detail.
H Suffice it to say that the reliefs sought for in the applications are conflicting.
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 63 5

Some of the intervenors have sought for:- A
·(i) noise created by horns of engines, pressure horns in automobiles,
loudspeakers, denting painting of cars, particularly, in residential areas
and from unauthorized premises being prohibited;

(ii) use of loudspeakers in religious places such as temples, mosque, B
churches, gurudwaras and other places being discontinued or at least
regulated;

(iii) firecrackers burst during Diwali festival and on other occasions
for fun or merry making being prohibited completely, if the noise
created exceeds certain decibels and being so regulated as to prevent C
bursting during night hours.

Other set of intervenors seeks such like reliefs:-

(i) granting exemption in favour of bursting of firecrackers on or
during festivals without regard to the limit of time as such bursting D
of firecrackers is assoCiated with the performance of ceremonies relating
to religion or social occasions;

(ii) laying down mechanism for regulating the very manufacturing of
firecrackers so that such firecrackers as unreasonably enhance noise
pollution may be kept away from entering the markets and playing into E
the hands of the people.

_It is obvious that during the course of the hearing the scope got
enlarged and the Court has been addressed on very many issues from very
many angles.
F
Artiele 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 person to life with human dignity. Therein
are included, all the aspects oflife which go to make a person's life meaningful,
complete and worth living. The human life has its charm and there is no G
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 H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the effect of materially interfering ~ith 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, including the place and the time.

Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1 )A pleading
B 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
C 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
D pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(l)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 five in
an atmosphere free from noise pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed
E 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
Ors., AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent ofPolice,
Kottayam, AIR (1993) Kerala I. We have carefully gone through the reasoning
adopted in the two decisions. and the principle of law laid down therein, in
. particulaF, the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitµtion. We find ourselves -
F in entire agreement therewith.
The present cases provide an opportunity for examining severar
questions, such as what is noise? What are its adverse effects? Whether
noise pollution runs in conflict with the fundamental rights of the people?
And what relief can be allowed by way of directions issued in public interest?
G
I
Noise what it is?

The word noise is derived from the Latin term "nausea". It has been

H
IN RE: NOISE pQLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 63 7

defined as "unwanted sound, a potential hazard to health and communication A
dumped into the environment with regard to the adverse effect it may have
on unwilling ears." 1

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound which pleases the listeners
is music and that which causes pain and annoyance is noise. At times, what
is music for some can be noise for others2• B
Section 2(a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,
includes noise in the definition of 'air pollutant'.

Section 2(a) "air pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance
including noise present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be C
or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants
or property or environment.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica : In acoustics 'noise' is defined
as any undesired sound. 3"
D
According to Chambers 20th Century Dictio9ary4, 'noise' means Sound
especially of loud, harsh or confused kind; a sound of any kind; an over loud
or disturbing sound; frequent or public talk.

In Chamber,s 21st Century Dictionary, the definition of 'noise' has E
undergone a change. Noise pollution stands carved out as a phrase separately
from noise. The two are defined as under : ·

"Noise a sound; a harsh disagreeable sound, or such sound; a din.
pollution-an excessive or annoying degree of noise in a particular area, e.g.
from traffic or aeroplane engines." F
"Pollution" is a noun derived from the verb "pollute". Section 2(c) of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines "environmental pollution" to
mean the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant. Section
2 (b) of the said Act defines "environmental pollutant" to mean any solid,
G
1
P.S. Jaswal and Nistha Jaswal-Environmental Law, Second Edn., 2003, p. 327
2
Parivesh Newsletter:· Central Pollution Control Board, December 1996.
3
Vol.l6, 1968, p.558
4
1987 ed. H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or
tends to be injurious to environment.

Thus, the disturbance produced in our environment by the undesirable
sound of various kinds is called " noise pollution".

B IJ
Noise as nuisance and health hazard

Noise is more than just a nuisance. It constitutes a real and present
danger to people's health. Day and night, at home, at work, and at play, noise
can produce serious physical and psychological stress. No one is immune to
C this stress. Though we seem to adjust to noise by ignoring it, the ear, in fact;
never closes and the body still responds-sometimes with extreme tension, as
to a strange· sound in the night.

Noise is a type of atmospheric pollution. It is a shadowy public enemy
D whose growing menace has increased in the modern age of industrialization ·
and technological advancement. Although a soft rhythmic sound in the form
of music and dance stimulates brain activities, removes boredom and fatigue,
but its excessiveness may prove detrimental to living things. Researches have
proved that a loud,.. noise during peak marketing hours creates tiredness,
irritation and impairs brain activities so as to reduce thinking and working
E abilities. Noise pollution was previously confined to a few special areas like
factory or mill, but today it engulfs every nook and comer of the globe,
reaching its peak in urban .areas. Industries, automobiles, rail engines,
aeroplanes, radios, loudspeakers, tape recorders, lottery ticket sellers, hawkers,
pop singers, etc., are the main ear contaminators of the city area and its market
F place. The regular rattling of engines and i':1termittent blowing of horns
emanating from the car(!.van of automobiles do not allow us to have any
respite from irritant noise even in suburban zones 5 •

In the modern days noise has become one of the major pollutants and
it has· serious effects on human health. Effects of noise depend upon sound's
G pitch, its frequency and time pattern and length of exposure. Noise has both
auditory and non-auditory ~ffects depending upon the intensity and the
duration of the noise level6 • It ·affects sleep, hearing, communication, mental

5Ranbir Singh, Noise Pollution: Environment and the law, as printed in India Bar Review,
Vol.23(3&4) 1996 p.86.

H 6
P.S. Jaswal, Nistha Jaswal-Environmental law, Second Edn., p.331
...
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & H.IGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 63 9

, and physical health. It may even lead to the madness of people. A
However, noises, which are melodious, whether natural or man-made,
cannot always be considered as factors leading to pollution.

Noise can disturb our work, rest, sleep, and communication. It can
damage our hearing and evoke other psychological, and possibly pathological B
reactions. However, because of complexity, variability and the interaction of
noise with other environmental factors, the adverse health effects of noise do
not lend themselves to a straightforward analysis 7•

Hearing Loss
c
"Deafness, like poverty, stunts and deadens its victims."- says Helen
Keller. Hearing loss can be either temporary or permanent. Noise-induced
temporary threshold shift (NITTS) is a temporary loss of hearing acuity
experienced after a relatiV'ely short exposure to excessive noise. Pre-exposure
hearing is recovered fairly rapidly after cessation of the noise. Noise induced D
_ permanent threshold shift (NIPTS) is an irreversible loss of hearing that is
caused by prolonged noise exposure. Both kinds of loss together with
presbyacusis, the permanent hearing impairment that is attributable to the
natural aging process, can be experienced simultaneously!.

NIPTS occurs typically at high frequencies, usually with a maximum E
loss at around 4,000 Hz. It is now accepted that the risk of hearing loss is
negligible at noise exposure levels of less than 75 dB(A) Leq (8-hr). Based
on national judgments concerning acceptable risk, many countries have
adopted industrial noise exposure limits of 85 dB(A) +5 dB(A) in their
regulations and recommended practices9 • [N.B.- Hz. is abbreviation of Hertz
which is the unit of frequency, equal to one cycle per second. Hertz (Hz) is F
the name, by international agreement, for the number of repetitions of similar
pressure variations per second of time; this unit of frequency was previously
called "cycles per second" (cps or c/s)].

Interference with Communication
G
The interference of noise with speech communication is a process in

7
Parivesh Newsletter: Central Pollution Control Board, December, _1996 at pg.4.

'Id.
9
ld. H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A which one of two simultaneous sounds renders the other inaudible. An
important aspect of communication interference in occupational situations is
that the failure of workers to hear warning signals or shouts may lead to
injury. In offices, schools and homes, speech interference is a major source
of annoyance 10 •

B Disturbance of sleep.
Noise intrusion can cause difficulty in falling asleep and can awaken
people who are asleep 11 •

Annoyance
c
'Noise annoyance' may be defined as a feeling of displeasure evoked
by noise. 'The annoyance inducing c~pacity qf a noise depends-~pon many
of its physical characteristics and variations of these with time. However,
annoyance reactions are sensitive to many non-acoustic factors of a:. social,
D psychological, or economic nature and there are considerable differ~ces. in
individual reactions to the same noise 12 •

Effect on performance

Noise can change the state of alertness of an individual and may
increase or decrease efficiency. Performance of tasks involving motor or
E monotonous activities is not always degraded by noise. At the other extreme,.
mental activities involving vigilance, information gathering and analytical
processes appear to be particularly sensitive to noise 13 •

Physiological Effects
F It has been determined that noise has an explicit effect on the blood
vessels, especially the smaller ones known as pre-capillaries. Overall, noise
makes these blood vessels narrower. Noise causes the peripheral blood vessels
in the toes, fingers, skin and abdominal organs to constrict, thereby decreasing
the amount of blood normally supplied to these areas 14 •
G
'°ld.
11 ld.

121d.
llJd.
H 14Jd.
·'

-~.;:
..
•
l

I
'
r-
INRE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OFLOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 641

Possible clinical manifestations of stress concomitant with noise are : A
(i) galvanic skin response, (ii) increased activity related to ulcer formation, (iii)
changes in intestinal motility, (iv) changes in skeletal muscle tension, (v)
subjective response irritability perception of loudness, (vi) increased sugar,
cholesterol & adrenaline, (vii) changes in heart rate, (viii) increased blood
pressure, (ix) increased adrenal hormones, (x) vasoconstriction. Not only B
might there be harmful consequences to health during the state of alertness,
but research also suggests effects may occur when the body is unaware or
asleep. (Source; NOISE EFFECTS HANDBOOK, A Desk Reference to Health
and Welfare Effects of Noise By Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October
1979, Revised July 1981) C
The investigations have revealed that the blood vessels which feed the
brain, dilate in the presence of noise. This is the reason why headaches result
. from listening to persistent high noise 15 •

Field studies have also been conducted on various other groups such D
as people living near airports, and school children exposed to traffic noise,
showing_that there may be some risk for these people. In addition, laboratory
studies on animals and humans have demonstrated a relationship between
noise and high blood pressure. Other studies have shown that noise can
induce heart attacks 16 •
E
Prolonged chronic noise can also produce stomach ulcers as it may
reduce the 'flow of gastric juice and change its acidity.

With what other stress effects can noise be associated? 17

Stress can be manifested in any number of ways, including headaches, F
irritability, insomnia, digestive disorders, and psychological disorders. Workers
who are exposed to excessive noise frequently complain that noise just makes
them tired.

Quite a few field studies have been done on workers in Europe, examining
G
15
Parivesh Newsletter: Central Pollution Control Board December 1996'. at pg. 4-6.
16
Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, By Office
of tlie.·Scienitifc Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. US £nv1i·o11me11lal
Protection Agency, October 1979, Revised July 1981.

17Jd. H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A the relationship between noise and illness. In these studies, noise has been
related to the following:

General morbidity (illness); Neuropsychological disturbances-
Headaches, Fatigue, Insomnia, Irritability, Neuroticism; Cardiovascular system
disturbances_;Hypertension, Hypotension, cardiac disease; Digestive
B disorders-Ulcers, Colitis; Endocrine and biochemical disorders;

Noise and the unborn.

There is· ample evidence that environment has a role in shaping the
physique, behaviour and function of animals, including men, from conception
C and not merely from birth. The fetus is capable of perceiving sounds and
responding to them by motor activity and cardiac rate change 18 •

Special effects on unborn, children and human beings generally

The fetus is not fully protected from noise. Noise may threaten fetal
D development. Noise has been linked to low birth weights. Levels of noise
which do not interfere with the perception of speech by adults may interfere
significantly with the perception of speech by children as well as with the
acquisition of speech, language, and language-related skills 19 • Because they
are just learning, children have more difficulty in understanding language in
E the presence of noise than adults do. Reading ability also may be seriously
impaired by noise. 20 Apart from children, the noise pollution causes several
adverse effects on human beings generally. Some of these are: (i) hearing loss,
(ii) nonauditory physiological response such as stress, arousal response,
cardiovascular effects etc., (iii) communication interferen~e, (iv) performance
interference, and v) sleep disturbance and so on2 '.·
F
18 Lestre W. Sontang, The Fels Research Institute (Quted 1n Noise: A Health, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Contro1, Washington,
D.C. August 1978.) ·
1
9National Academy of Science Report-USA, quoted and referred to in Noise: A Health .}

G Problem, published by United State Environment Protection Agency (Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, Washington D.C.) August, 1978.
2
"Noise: A Health Problem, published by United states Environment Protection Agency (Office
of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington D.C.) August, 1978.

2 'Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfar Effects of Noise by Office

of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental
H frotection Agency, October 1979, revised july 1981.
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 64 3

Ill A
Sources of Noise Pollution.

Noise pollution like other pollutants is also a by-product of
industrialization, urbanization and modem civilization.
B
Broadly speaking, the noise pollution has two sources, i.e. industrial
and non-industrial. The industrial source includes the noise from various
industries and big machines working at a very high speed and high noise
intensity. Non-industrial source ofnoise includes the noise created by transport/
vehicular traffic and the neighbourhood noise generated by various noise
pollution can also be divided into the categories, namely, natural and C
manmade. 22

Most leading noise sources will fall into the following categories: road
traffic, aircraft, railroads, construction, industry, noise in buildings, and
consumer products23 •
D
I. Road traffic noise

Noise from the motors and exhaust systems of large trucks provides the

.. major portion of highway noise impact, and provides a potential noise hazard
to the driver as well. In addition, noise from the iqteraction of tyres with the
roadway is generated by trucks, buses,_ and private autos.
E

In the city, the main sources of traffic noise are the motors and exhaust
-I systems of autos, smaller trucks, buses, and motorcycles. This type of noise
can be augmented by narrow streets and tall buildings, which produce a
"canyon" in which traffic noise reverberates.
F
2. Aircraft noise

Nowadays, the problem of low-flying military aircraft has added a new
dimension to community annoyance, as the nation seeks to improve its "nap-
of-the-earth" warfare capabilities. In addition, the issue of aircraft operations G
over national parks, wilderness areas, and other areas previously unaffected

22 P.S. Jaswal and Nistha Jaswal; Noise Pollution and Its Control; Environmental Law, Pioneer

Publications, Second Ed, 2003. p. 330.

23 Dr. Alice H. Suter, Noise and its Effects: Administrative Conference of the United States H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A by aircraft noise has claimed national attention over recent years.
3. Noise from railroads

it The noise from locomotive engines, horns and whistles, and switching
and shunting operations in rail yards can impact neighbouring communities
B and railroad workers. For example, rail car retarders can produce a high-
frequency, high-level screech that can reach peak levels of 120 dB at a
distance of 100 feet which translates to levels as high as 138 or 140 dB at the.
railroad worker's ear.

4. Construction noise
c
-
The noise from construction of highways, city streets, and buildings is
a major contributor to the urban scene. Construction noise sources include
pneumatic hammers, air compressors, bulldozers, loaders, dumptrucks (and
their back-up signals), and pavement breakers.

D 5. Noise in industry
Although industrial noise is one of the less prevalent community noise
problems, neighbours of noisy manufacturing plants can be disturbed by
sources such as fans, motors, and compressors mounted on the outside of ·
buildings. Interior noise can also be transmitted to the community through
E open windows and doors, and even through building walls. These interior
noise sources have significant impacts on industrial workers, among whom
noise-induced hearing Joss is unfortunately common.

6. Noise in buildings
F Apartment dwellers are often annoyed by noise in their homes, especially
when the building is not well designed and constructed. In this case, internal
building noise from plumbing, boilers, generators, air conditioners, and fans,
can be audible and annoying. Improperly insulated walls and ceilings can
reveal the sound of amplified music, voices, footfalls, and noisy activities
G from neighbouring units. External noise from emergency vehicles, traffic,
refuse collection, and other city noises can be a problem for urban residents,
especially when windows are open or insufficiently glazed.

7. Noise from consumer products

H Certain household equipment, such as vacuum cleaners and some kitchen ·
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LA IVS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUC~~G SOUND SYSTEMS 64 5
appliances have been and continue to be noiseniakers, although their A
contribution to the daily noise dose is usually not very large.

IV

Noise pollution in the special context of Fireworks.

'-. Fireworks are used all over the world to celebrate special occasions. In B
India, fireworks are burst on festivals like Dussehra, Diwali and on ·special
occasions like social gatherings, marriages, Independence day, Republic day,
New year day, etc. In other countries of the world, fireworks are generally
burst'either on the Ne_w Year day or on the birthday of the.ir respective
countries. However, bursting of firecrackers is a health hazard since it is
responsible for both ah-'pdli;Ution and noise 1'oll~tion 24 • C
-~ .

The use of Fireworks has led to air pollution in the form of noise and
smoke .. Their excessive use has· started to be a public hazard and violation
of their fundamental rights as elsh~i~ed in the Constitution of India. ,

··~ It has been held in the tase of "Om Birangana Religious Society v. D
S,tate, 100 CWN 617" that the "Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(l){a) of the Constitution of India includes, by necessary
implication, freedom not to listen and/or to remain silent. A citizen has a right
to leisure, right to sleep, right not to hear and right to remain silent. He also
has the right to read and speak with others". Because of the tremendous E
sound and noise, the citizens cannot exercise all these fundamental rights.

It has been seen that firecrackers noise is an impulsive noise and is
hazardous. Bursting of a firecracker near the ear can lead sometimes to non-
recoverable hearing loss.
F
Diwali is the most important festival of India. The bursting of firecrackers
during this period is a wide spread practice. The unpredictable, intermittent
and impulsive noise produced by bursting of crackers all around, turns the
festival of lights into cacophony of noise. 25 People are unable to even sleep
due to this excessive noise pollution. Several people are injured due to the
noise produced by firecrackers every year. G
Firecrackers not only increase the ambient noise level but also contribute
24
Dr. S.P. Singal, Noise Pollution and Control, Narosa Publishing House. NewDelhi, 2000.

25 Ambient Noise Level and Air Quality Status In Delhi During Diwali Festival Days 1999-

2002, published by Central Polluction Control Board, October 2003. H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A significantly in increasing the air pollution by means of toxic gases and
particles due to their blast wave resulting from a rapid release of energY..

In order to assess the situation of noise pollution caused by firecrackers
at the time of Diwali the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has been
conducting ambient noise level monitoring during Diwali festival regularly at
B various locations in Delhi since 1993, to find increased ambient noise level
caused by intensive burning of crackers. As in the past, the noise and air
quality monitoring have been carried out in the years 1999, 2000, 200I, and
2002. The noise monitoring locations have been selected to cover almost all
areas of Delhi. 26
c An analysis of the Reports prepared in the years I999, 2000, 200I, and
2002 reveals that the ambient noise level on Diwali day exceeded the limit at
almost all the places during these years. The noise level was higher during
Diwali-2000 as compared to the values recorded during Diwali festival in the
years I999, 200I, and 2002. 27
D
The percentage of violation in L.eq. noise level varied from 02 to 49%
in the year 2002, 12 to 55% in the year 2001, I I to 58% in the year 2000 and
22 to 47% in the year 1999 with respect to the day time standards at all the
areas 28 • [N.B. Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level, Leq is the level
of that steady sound which over the same interval of time, contains the same
E total energy (or dose) as the fluctuating sound. Equivalent continuous sound
level has gained widespread acceptance as a scale for the measurement of .
long-term noise exposure.]

The ambient noise level conducted during the years 1999 to 2002 oil
Diwali festival, exceeded the limit at all places in every year and the percentage
F of violation varies from 2% to 58%29 •

Thus, the stttdy does reveal that the noise levels that have been
measured on all these occasions have been more than the prescribed norms.
This is a point of worry as it has been discussed that noise pollution does
G tend to have adverse effects on a person. Thus immediate steps in this
direction need to be taken.

26[d.

27Jd.
28Jd.
H 29Jd.
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 64 7

The problem of noise pollution due to firecrackers is not only limited A
to India. Similar problems are being experienced in other countries as well. In
fact in United Kingdom, in Nottingham the "Be Safe Not Sorry" campaign was
launched after the post was inundated with letters from readers to the
newspaper saying they were fed up with the noise, nuisance and the distress
that fireworks cause.
B
v
Methodology adopted in other countries for noise pollution
control.

Different countries of the :World have enacted different legislations to C
control the noise pollution. For ExamP.le, in England there is a Noise Abetment
Act, 1960 Section 2 of this Act provides that loudspeakers should not be
operated between the hours of 9:00 in the evening and 8:00 in the following
morning for any purpose and at any other time for purpose of advertisement
and entertainment, trade or business. Control on.Pollution Act of 1974, contains
provisions for controlling noise pollution and it provides noise to be actionable D
must amount to nuisance in the ordinary legal sense. Section 62 of the English
Control of Pollution Act, 1974, operates as perfect control for 'Street Noise'.
This provision has been defined as a highway and any other road, footway
or square or court which is for the time being open to public. In Japan there
is Anti Pollution Basic Law, which helps to control the pollution including E
noise pollution.

A few of the notable legislations may be mentioned illustratively.

Noise Act 1996-U.K.

This Act makes provision about noise emitted from dwellings at night;
F
about the forfeiture and confiscation of equipment used to make noise
unlawfully; and for connected purposes. The kind of complaint referred to is
one made by any individual present in a dwelling during night hours that
excessive noise is being emitted from another dwelling. "Night hours" means
the period beginning with l lp.m. and ending with 7 a.m. The Act provides G
for the service of a notice on the offender by the prescribed officer if he thinks
that the noise being emitted is more than the permissible limits.

In cases where the noise level does not come down in spite of the
notice being served, the officer can seize such equipments which in his
opinion are the source of such noise. H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993
An Act to make provision for noise in a street to be a statutory
nuisance; to make provision with respect to the operation of loudspeakers in
a street; to make provision with respect to audible intruder alarms; to make
provision for expenses incurred by local authorities in abating, or preventing
B the recurrence of, a statutory nuisance to be a charge on the premises to
which they relate; and for connected purposes.

The US Noise Pollution and Abatement Act, 1970 is an important
legislation for regulating control and abatement of noise. Under this Law the
C environment protection agency, acting through the office of Noise Abatement
and Control, holds public meetings in selected cities to compile information
on noise pollution.

The Public Health And Welfare:- Chapter 65- Noise Control(US)

The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to
D promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of this chapter to
. establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities /
in noise control, to authorize the establishment of Federal noise .emission
standards for products distributed in commerce, and to provide information
E to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics
of such products.

The Act further provides for

1. Identification of major noise sources
F 2. Noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce
3. Labelling
4. Quiet communities, research, and public information
5. Development of low-noise-emission products
G 6. Motor carrier noise emission standards

Noise Regulation Law-Japan.

The purpose of this Law is to preserve living environment and contribute
to protection of the people's health by regulating noise generated by the
operation of factories and other types of work sites· as well as construction
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LA IVS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 649

w_ork affecting a considerable area, and by setting maxi.mum permissible levels A
of motor vehicle noise.

The Prefectural Governor shall designate concentrated residential areas,
school· and hospital zones, and other such areas in which h is deemed
necessary to protect the living environment of the residents from noise, as
areas subject to the regulation of noise produced by specified factories and B
specified construction work.

The Prefectural Governor, while . designating the areas pursuant to
Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article, shall establish regulatory standards for
specified hours and zones of said areas within the scope of the standar_ds set C
forth by the Director General of the Environment Agency according to the
necessary degree ofnoise control in regard to specified factories for specified
hours and zones.

Persons installing specific facilities are liable to report the same to the
Prefectural Governor within 30 days. D
The Governor has the powers to order change in the outlay of the
factory when they do not confer to the noise regulations.

Any party who plans to undertake construction projects which involve
specified construction work in designated areas, shall file a report-'with the E
.Prefectural Governor no later than seven (7) days prior to the beginning of
the said construction.

The Prefectural Governor shall be responsible for the monitoring of
noise levels in designated areas.
F
For the regulation on noise caused by announcement through the use
of loudspeakers and noise emitted during the night time operation of bars and
restaurants, local government shall take measures necessary to protect the
living environment, including restrictions on operating hours, in accordance
with the local physical and social conditions.
G
, The regulations also prescribe the pennissible noise levels for the various
areas, as well as the time periods between which noise-emitting machines can
be used.

Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of
Pollution From Environmental Noise (adopted on October 29, 1996) H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A This Law is enacted for the purpose of prevertting and controlling
environmental noise pollution, protecting and improving the living environment,
ensuring human health and promoting economic and social development.

For purposes of this Law, "environmental noise" means the sound that
is emitted in the course of industrial production, construction, transportation
B and social activities and that impairs the living environment of the
neighbourhood.

The competent administrative department for environmental protection
under the State Council shall, in accordance with the national standards for
C acoustic environmental quality and the State's economic and technological
conditions, fix national limits for environmental noise. emission.

Every project under constructien, renovation or expansion must conform
to the regulations of the State governing environmental protection.

The industrial noise emitted to the living environment of the
D neighbourhood within an urban area shall be kept within the limits set by the
State on emission of environmental noise within the boundary of an industrial
enterprise.

The construction noise emitted to the living environment of the
E neighbourhood within an urban area shall be kept within the limits set by the
State on the emission of environmental noise within the boundary of a
construction site.

It is forbidden to manufacture, se:ll or import automobiles that emit noise
beyond the limits set on noise level.
.
F
All units and individuals are forbidden to use high-pitch loudspeakers
in urban areas where noise-sensitive structures are concentrated.

Any unit or individual suffering from the hazards of environmental ·
noise pollution shall have the right to demand the polluter to eliminate the
G hazards; if a loss has been caused, it shall be compensated according to law.

"Noise emission" means emission of noise from the source to the living
environment of the neighbourhood.

"Noise-sensitive structures" means structures that require a quiet
H environment such as hospitals, schools, government offices, research
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. Us'E OF LOUOSPE. Ill. HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 65 1

institutions and residential buildings. A
"Areas where noise-sensitive structures are concentrated" mean such
areas as medical treatment areas, cultural, education and research districts and
areas where government offices or residential buildings constitute the main
buildings.
B
"At night" means the period from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Australia

In New South Wales (NSW) no single Government authority has the
responsibility or capacity to be able to minimise all forms of noise pollution. C
The State is excluded from control of noise in a number of areas by
commonwealth legislation. These include aircraft noise, where noise limits
could affect trade, and the setting standards for noise emissions from new
vehicles. In areas where the State does have powers to control noise the
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has an overall responsibility for
environmental noise (as distinct from occupational noise), under the Noise D
Control Act 1975. The Act deals with the prevention, minimisation and
abatement of noise and vibration and empowers the EPA, the Waterways
Authority, local Government and the police for these purposes.

The EPA controls noise from scheduled premises those required by the E
Noise Control Act to have a licence and noise associated with rail traffic and
the construction or upgrading of freeways and toll roads. The Police and local
council are generally responsible for neighbourhood noise issues and have
authority to issue noise abatement directions to control noise from premises
and for hoise from burglar alarms. Local council have an essential role in
minimising the effects of excessive noise, particularly in their local residential F
areas, from smaller factories, non-scheduled premises and public places. The
Wate£Ways Authority has specific responsibilities in relation to noise from
vessels in navigable waters.

Under the provisions ofthe Noise Control Act 1975 in NSW the railway
system is classified as scheduled premises and as such the EPA has a G
regulatory role, and seeks to achieve noise targets for rail operations
·throughout the State to minimise the impact on local residents.

The EPA issues licences for the management of scheduled premises.
When issuing a licence the EPA sets initial noise limits that are achievable H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A with the operation of plant and equipment currently installed, operated and
maintained effectively. To achieve further improvements in noise exposure to
1
residents, negotiations with the licensed premises are carried out and can be
incorporated in the licence as Pollution Reduction Programs (PRPs). The EPA
is currently working with industry to reduce noise levels from major sources.

B The Noise Control (Miscellaneous Articles) Regulation 1995 was
introduced to cover community noise issues not covered by previous
legislation. It includes limitations on burglar alarms for both residential and
commercial premises. Changes have been made to the night-time control of
common domestic noise sources such as power tools, air conditioners, amplified
C music and lawn mowers. Under the new regulation only one warning to the
offender is required and the warning is valid for 28 days. If an offence is
committed within this period a fine can be issued without further warnings.
The previous regu_)ation warning was only active for 12 hours which theant
it was not very effective with repetitious offences typical in suburban areas.

D The Noise Control (Motor Vehicles arid Motor Vehicle Accessories)
Regulation 1995 controls the noise of individual motor vehicles. It includes
. a provision to c?ntrol noise from a range of accessories Including horns,
alarms, refrigeration units and sound systems. It also places responsibility to
ensure compliance ofrepairs/modifications of vehicles on the vehicle repairers.

E In addition to the measures introduced to reduce the source and
transmission of noise, measures can be undertaken to noise proof buildings
thereby reducing the occupant exposure to noise.

Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance

F The Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance allows for nonnal
activities during regular hours; however, it does attempt to eliminate interference
from noise when most of us want to rest and relax. It also seeks to control
disturbing and unhealthy levels of noise in general. Key provisions of the
Noise Control Ordinance:

G (i) Provide day/night sound level limits.
(ii) Establish "quiet hours."
(iii) Define sounds that constitute noise disturbances.

(iv) Establish a "nuisance provision" that prohibits certain noises at
H any time.
IN RE: NOISEPOLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 653

A 'noise disturbance,' as defined by the Ordinance, is any sound that A
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 to~nhouses. The "nuisance
provision" prohibits some noise disturbances anywhere at any time.
B
The Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance promotes peace and
quiet for everyone by covering a wide variety of residential and business
situations. The Ordinance does not cover noise from aircraft and railroads or
motor vehicles on public roadways, as Federal and State Governments
supersede local regulation. Also exempt are emergency operations by public C
utilities.

Among other prov1s1ons, the Montgomery County Noise Control
Ordinance makes it illegal to:

(i) Operate, or allow to be operated, a radio, television, or other D
electronic sound-producing device on public or private property ifthe
sound exceeds 55 decibels at the receiving property line.

(ii) Create a noise disturbance during "quiet hours" in il residential
zone or multi-family structure.

(iii) Operate any equipment that exceeds the receiving property line E
sound level limits.

(iv) Allow an animal or fowl to create a noise disturbance at any time.

(vi) Load or unload material during "quiet hours."

(vi) Create a noise disturbance across property lines during "quiet
F
hours" by operating power equipment mounted on a motor vehicle;
for example, refrigerated trucks or commercial vacuum cleaners.

(vii) Permit construction noise to exceed 75 decibels, with allowances
for higher decibel levels under an approved "Noise Suppression Plan." G
VI
Statutory Laws in India

Not that the Legislature and the Executive in India are completely
unmindful of the menace of noise pollution. Laws have been enacted and the H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A Rules have been framed by the Executive for carrying on the purposes of the
legislation. The real issue is with the implementation of the laws. What is
needed is the will to implement the Jaws. It would be useful to have a brief
resume of some of the laws which are already available on the Statute Book.
Treatment of the problem of noise pollution can be dealt under the Law of
Crimes and Civil Law. Civil Jaw can be divided under two heads (i) The Law
B of Torts, and (ii) The General Civil Law. The cases regarding noise have not
come before the Jaw courts in large quantity. The reason behind this is that
many people in India did not consider noise as a sort of pollution and they
are not very much conscious about the evil consequences of noise pollution.
The level of noise pollution is relative and depends upon a person and a
C particular place. The Jaw will not tal<e care of a super sensitive person but the
standard is of an average and rational human being in the society.

The Noise Pollutsion (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

In order to curb the growing problem of noise pollution, the Government
D of India has enacted the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
Prior to the enactment of these Rules noise pollution was not being dealt
specifically by a particular Act.

"Whereas the increasing ambient noise ievels in publi.c places from
various sources, inter a/ia, industrial activity, construction activity,
E generator sets, loudspeakers, public address systems, music systems,
vehicular horns and other mechanical devices, have deleterious effects
on human hea_Jth and the psychological well being of the people; it
is considered necessary to regulate and control noise producing and
generating sources with the objective of maintaining the amb.ient air
quality standard in respect of noise;" 30
F
The main provisions of the Noise Pollution Rules are as under:

1. The State Govenunent may categorize the areas into industrial,
commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of ·
implementation of noise standards for different areas.
G
2. The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different
areas/zones has been specified for in the Schedule annexed to the
Rules.

H 30 Ministry of Environment and Forest Notification, New Delhi, 14Feb, 2000.
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMl'LE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND S'l'STEMS 655

3. The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise A
including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that
the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards
specified under these Rules.

4. An area comprising not less than I 00 meters around hospitals,
educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/ B
zone for the purpose of these Rules.

5. A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except
after obtaining written pennission from the authority and the same
shall not be used at night i.e. between 10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m.

·6. A person found violating the provisions as to the maximum noise
c
pennissible in any particular area shall be liable to be punished for it
as per the provisions of these Rules and any other law in force.

Indian Penal Code
D
Noise pollution can be dealt under Sections 268, 290 and 291 of th~
Indian Penal Code, as a public nuisance. Under Section 268 of this Code, it
is mentioned that 'A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act
or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger
or annoyance to the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy
property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, E
danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public
right.

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some
convenience or advantage.'
F
Sections 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the punishment
for public nuisance.

Criminal Procedure Code

Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the magistrate G
has the power to make conditional order requiring the person causing nuisance
to remove such nuisance.

The Factories Act, 1948.

The Factories Act does not contain any specific provision for noise H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A control. However, under the Third Schedule [Sections 89 and 90 of the Act,]
'noise induced hearing loss', is mentioned as a notifiable disease. Under -
Section 89 of the Act, any medical practitioner who detects any notifiable
disease, including noise-induced hearing loss, in a worker, has to report the
case to the Chieflnspector of Factories, along with all other relevant information.
B Failure to do so is a punishable offence.

Similarly, under the Model Rules, limits for noise exposure for work zone
area has been prescribed.

Motor Vehicles Act, I 988, and Rules framed thereunder

C Rules 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, deal with
reduction of noise.

Rule 119. Horns

(1) On and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement
D of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, ~very
motor vehicle including construction equipment vehicle! and
agricultural tractor manufactured shall be fitted with ~n electric
horn or other devices conforming to the requirements of I.S:
1884-1992, specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards for use
by the driv~r of the vehicle and capable of giving audible and
E sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle:

Provided that on and from 1st January, 2003, the horn installation
shall be as per AIS-014 specifications, as may be amended from time
to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards
specifications are notified.
F
(2) No motor vehicle shall be fitted with any multi-toned horn giving
a succession of different notes or with any other sound-producing
device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.

Rule I 20. Silencers
G
(1) Every motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted
with a device (hereinafter referred to as a silencer) which by
means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as
practicable, the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape
of exhaust gages from the engine.
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HiGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 65 7

(2) Noise standards-Every motor vehicle shall be constructed and A
maintained so as to conform to noise standards specified in Part
E of the Schedule VI to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986,
when tested as per IS: 3028-1998, as amended from time to time.

Law of Torts
B
Quietness and freedom from noise are indispensable to the full and free
enjoyment of a dwelling-house. No proprietor has an absolute right to create
noises upon his own land, because any right which the law gives is qualified
by the condition that it must not be exercised to the nuisance of his neighbours
or of the public. Noise will create an actionable nuisance only if it materially
interferes with the ordinary comfort of life, judged by ordinary, plain and C
simple notions, and having regard to the locality; the question being one of
degree in each case. 31

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

Noise was included in the definition of air pollutant in Air (Prevention D
and Control of Pollution) Act in 1987. Thus, the provisions of the Air Act,
became applicable in respect of noise pollution, also.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Although there is no specific provision to deal with noise pollution, the E
Act confers powers on Government of India to take measures to deal with
various types of pollution including noise pollution.

Fireworks

The Explosives Act, 1884 regulates manufacture, possession, use, sale, F
transport, import & export of explosives. Firecrackers are governed by this
Statute. Rule 87 of the Explosives Rule, 1983 prohibits manufacture of any
explosive at any place, except in factory or premises licensed under the Rules.

In India there is no separate Act that regulates the manufacture, G
possession, use, sale, manufacture and transactions in firecrackers. All this
is regulated by The Explosives Act, 1884. The Noise that is produced by
these fireworks is regulated by the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

31
Ratanlal and Dhirajilal, The Law of Torts (24 th edition, Edited by Justice G.P. Singh) p.589 H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A VII
JUDICIAL OPINION JN INDIA

In Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal v. The State, AIR (1958) Punjab 11,
accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 290 of Indian
1B Penal Code, 1860 and was fined Rs. 50 for causing noise and emitting smoke
and vibrations by operating of heavy machinery in the residential area. The
order of the trial court was upheld by the District Magistrate in appeal. The
High Court of Punjab & Haryana also upheld the decision of the courts below
and dismissed the revision petition. In the case of Bhuban Ram and Ors: v.
Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas, AIR (1919) Calcutta 539, it was held that working
C of a paddy husking machine at night causes nuisance by noise and the
occupier was held liable to be punished under Section 290 IPC. In Ivour
Heyden v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, (1984) Crl LJ (NOC) 16, the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh excused the act of playing radio loudly on the ground that
it was a trivial act. Careful reading of Section 95 of IPC shows that only that
D hann is excused which is not expected to be complained by the person of
·ordinary temper and sense.

In Rabin Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1985) Cal. 222 the use
of air horns was prohibited by the court to prevent noise pollution. The Court
observed:
E " ...... .it is found that the atmosphere and the environment is very
much polluted from indiscriminating noise emitted from different
quarters and on research it was found that persons who are staying
near the Airport, are becoming victim of various ailments. Such persons
even become victim of mental disease. On such research it was also
F found that workers in various factories even become deaf and hard
of hearing. It was further found on such research that as a result of
this excessive noise pollution, people suffer from loss of appetite,
depression, mental restlessness and insomnia. People also suffer from
complain of excessive blood pressure and heart trouble. It is not
necessary to go into the question about direct effect of such noise
G pollution because of indiscriminate and illegal use of such electric and
air horn as it is an admitted position that the same is injurious to
health and amongst different causes of environmental pollution, sound
pollution is one which is of grave concern."

In the case of People United for better Living in Calcutta v. State of
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE . .t. HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYsreMS 659

West Bengal, AIR (1993) Cal. 215 the Calcutta High Court observed: A
"In a developing country there shall have to be developments, but
that development shall have to be in closest possible harmony with
the environment, as otherwise there would be development but no
environment, which would result in total devastation, though, however,
may not be felt in present but at some future point of time, but then B
it would be too late in the day, however, to control and improve the
environment. In fact, there should be a proper balance between the
protection of environment and the development process. The society
shall have to prosper, but not at the cost of the environment and in
similar vein, the environment shall have to be protected but not at the C
cost of the development of the society and as such a balance has to
be found out and administrative actions ought to proceed accordingly."

In Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner ofPolice,
Calcutta, AIR (1998) Cal. 121 it has been held

"Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India does not guarantee the D
fundamental right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution
or which takes away that communities· safety, health and peace. A
Citizen or people cannot be made a captive listener to hear the
tremendous sounds caused by bursting out from a noisy fireworks.
It may give pleasure to one or two persons who burst it but others E
have to be a captive listener whose fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1 O)(a) and other provisions of the Constitution are
taken away, suspended and made meaningless. Under Art. 19(l)(a),
read with Art. 21 of the constitution of India, the citizens have a right
of decent environment and they have a right to live peacefully, right
to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which are all necessary F
under Art. 21 of the Constitution."(Headnote)

In Appa Rao, MS. v. Govt. ofT.N, (1995) 1LW319 (Mad), the Madras
High Court taking a note of the serious health hazard and disturbance to
public order and tranquility caused by the uncontrolled noise pollution
prevailing in the State, issued a writ of mandamus directing State Government G
to impose strict conditions for issue of license for the use of amplifiers and
loudspeakers and for directing Director-General, Police (Law and Order) to
impose total ban on use of horn type loudspeakers and amplifiers and air
horns of automobiles.
H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A In P.A. Jacob v. the Superintendent of Police, AIR (1993) Kerala 1, it
was said "The right to speech implies, the right to silence. It implies freedom,
not to listen, and not to be forced to listen. The right comprehends freedom
to be free from what one desires to be free from. Free speech is not to be
treated as a promise to everyone with opinions and beliefs, to gather at any
place and· at any time and express their views in any manner. The right is
B subordinate to peace and order. A person can decline to read a publication,
or switch off a radio or a television set. But, he cannot prevent the sound
from a lou~speaker reaching him. He could be forced to hear what,_ he wishes
not; to hear. That will be an invasion pf his right to be let alone, to hear what
he wants to. hear, or not to hear, what he does not wish to hear. One may put
C his mind or hearing to- his own uses, but not that of another. Noone has a
right to trespass on the mind or ear of another and commit auricular or visual
aggression. A loudspeaker is mechanical device, and it has no mind or
thought process in it. Recognition of the right of speech or expression is
recognition accorded to a human faculty. A right belongs to human personality,
and not to a mechanical device. One may put his faculties to reasonable uses.
D But, he cannot put his machines to any use he likes. He cannot use his
machines to injure others. Intervention with a machine, is not intervention
with, or invasion of a human faculty or. right. No mechanical device can be
upgraded to a human faculty. A computer or a robot cannot be conceded the
right under Art. 19 (though they may be useful to man to express his faculties).
E No more, a loudspeake". The use of a loudspeaker may be incidental to the
· exercise of the right. But, its use is not a matter of right, or part of the right".

In Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., AIR (2001) Delhi 455, it was said that
"Pollution being wrongful r.;ontamination of the environment which causes
F material injury to the right of an individual, noise can well be regarded as a
pollutant because it contaminates environment, causes nuisance and affects
the health of a person and would therefore, offend Art. 21, if it exceeds a
reasonable limit."

The Supreme Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R.
G Majestic Colony Welfare Assn., [2000] 7 SCC 282 held that the Court may
issue directions in respect of controlling noise pollution even if such noise
was a dirj!ct result of and was connected with religious activities. It was
further held:-

"Undisputedly, no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 661

by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should A
be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. In our view, in a
civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old
or infinn persons, students or children having their sleep in the early
hours or during daytime or other persons carrying on other activities
cannot be pennitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in
the neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of B
sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his
examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their
being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly, the
old and the infinn are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during
their leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. C
Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as
·children up to 6 years of age are considere.d to be very sensible (sic
sensitive) to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.

"Under the Envii-onment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules for noise-
pollution level are framed which prescribe pennissible limits of noise D
in residential, commercial, industrial areas or silence zone. The question
is whether the appellant can be pennitted to violate the said provisions
and add to the noise pollution. In our view, to claim such a right itself
would be .unjustifiable. in "these days, the problem of noise pollution
has become more serious with the increasing trend towards
industrialisation, urbanization and modernisation and is having many E
evil effects including danger to health. It may cause interruption of
sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness,
high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, gastrointestinal
problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance etc. This
also affects animals alike. The extent of damage depends upon the F
duration and the intensity of noise. Sometimes ifleads to serious law
and order problem. Further, in an organized society, rights are related
with duties towards others including neighbours ...

...... ;.because ofurbanization or industrialization the noise pollution
may in some area of a city/town might be exceeding pennissible limits G
prescribed under the Rules, but that would not be a ground for
permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use
of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments
and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the
Rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A the Madras Town Nuisances Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced."

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1990) SC 1480) the Supreme
Court reiterated the need to create separate tribunals and asserted the need
to appoint a body of experts to advice the Government on environmental
B issues.

In MC. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004] 1 SCC 571 this Court has
emphasized the need for creating environmental awareness amongst students
through education.

c We have referred to a few and not all available judgments. Suffice it to
observe that Indian Judicial opinion has been uniform in recognizing right to
live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by
Article 21 of the Constitution and noise pollution beyond permissible limits
as an in-road on that right. We agree with and record our approval of the view
taken and the opinion expressed by the several High Courts in the decisions
.D
referred to hereinabove.

VIII
Interim orders

E During the course of the hearing of this case the Court had passed
several interim orders keeping in mind the importance of the issue.

The interim order dated 27/09/2001 deserves to be mentioned in particular,
which directed as under:

F "(1) The Union Government, the Union Territories as well as all the
State Governments shall take steps to strictly comply with Notification
No. G.S.R. 682(E) dated October 05, 1999 whereby the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986 framed under the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 were amended. They shall in particular comply with amended
Rule 89 of the said Rules, which reads as follows:
G
"89. Noise standards for fire-crackers
A.(i) The manufacture, sale or use of firecrackers generating
noise level exceeding 125 dB(AI) or 145 dB( C)pk at 4 meters
distance from the point of bursting shall be prohibited. ..,.
H (ii) For individual fire-cracker constituting the series Goined fire-
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. &. HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 663

crackers), the above mentioned limit be reduced by 5 log IO(N) A
dB, where N = number of crackers joined together."

(2) The use of fireworks or fire-crackers shall not be permitted
except between 6.00 a.m. and 10.00p.m. No firework or firecracker
shall be allowed between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
(3) Firecrackers shall not be used at any time in silence zones, as B
defined in S.O. 1046(E) issued on 22.11.2000 by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. In the said Notification Silence Zone
has been defined as: " Silence Zone is an area comprising not
less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions,
courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as C
such by the competent authority."
(4) The State Education Resource Centers in all the States and
the Union Territories as well as the management/principals of
schools in all the States and Union Territories shall take appropriate
steps to educate students about the ill effects of air and noise D
pollution and appraise them of directions (I) to (3) above."

These interim directions were also directed to be given wide publicity both
by electronic and print media. It was said that Doordarshan and other television
channels shall give publicity to these directions, at least once every day
during prime time, during the fortnight before Dussehra and Diwali. The E .
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was asked to bring these directions
to the notice of the general public through appropriate advertisements, issued
in the newspapers. The All India Radio was asked to broadcast these directions
on prime time on FM and other frequencies for information of the general
public.
F
Due to the imposition of the restrictions on the bursting of firecrackers,
several Interim Applications came to be filed before the Court. The Court vide
its interim order dated 10.9.2003 stated:-

"Through the I.A.s filed in this Court the following two suggestions
deserve notice. G
Firstly, it is submitted that certain local festivals and celebrations are
accompanied customarily by bursting of firecrackers which is at times
at such hours as is not permissible under the order of this Court dated
27.9.2001. Secondly, it is pointed out that the industry of fireworks
may face serious difficulty, even partial closure, on account of the H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A directions made by this Court.

We have grave doubts if the abovesaid considerations can come in
the way of the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution for the citizens and people of India to live in peace and
comfort, in an atmosphere free from pollution of any kind, such as one
B caused by noise and foul/poisonous gases. However still, without
expressing any final opinion on the pleas advanced, we allow the
parties adversely affected the liberty to make representation to their
respective State Governments and the State Governments may, in their
tum, if satisfied of the genuineness of the representation made, invite
the attention of the Govt. of India, to the suggestions made."
c
We are happy to note that the initial reluctance to abide by the interim
directions made by this Court as displayed by the subsequent interlocutory
applications soon gave way to compliance. By and large the interim directions
made by Court were observed in compliance. Police and civil administration
D remained alert during Diwali Festival to see that the directions made by this
Court were complied with. Resident Welfare Associations and school childrens
gave a very enc()uraging response who voluntarily desisted from· bursting
firecrackers in prohibited hours.of night and also from bursting such firecrackers
as produce high level !loise.

E IX

Difficulty in implementation of noise pollution control methodology
in India.

India has passed through the stage of being characterised as a
F developing country and is ready to enter and stand in the line of developed
countries. Yet, the issue of noise pollution in India has not been taken so far
with that seriousness as it ought to have been. Firstly, as we have stated
earlier, there is a lack of will on the par:t of the Executive to implement the laws.
This has contributed to lack of infrastructure essential for attaining the
enforcement of laws. Secondly, there is lack of requisite awareness on the part ·
G of the citizens. The deleterious effects of noise pollution are not well known
to the people and are not immediately perceptible. People generally accept
· noise pollution as a part of life, a necessary consequence of progress and
prosperity.

The problems that are being faced in controlling noise pollution are:~
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL..IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 665

1. The Statutes and the Rules framed thereunder are not comprehensive A
enough so as to deal with all the problems and issues related to noise
pollution. This impression of ours stands reaffinned on a comparative
reading of legislation in India with those in other countries of the
world to which we have referred to briefly earlier in this judgment.

2. The authorities responsible for implementing the laws are not yet B
fully identified. Those which have been designated, do not seem to
be specialised in the task of regulating noise pollution. There is dearth
of necessary personnel technically qualified to act effectively. What
is needed is a combination of technically qualified and administratively
competent personnel with the requisite desire and dedication for C
implementation of the laws.

3. There is lack of proper gadgets and equipments and other
infrastructure such as labs for measuring the noise levels. Due to the
shortage of the instruments needed for the purpose of measuring
sound, the policemen who are on the job usually end up measuring D
sound with their ears itself and not with the use of technical
instruments.

x
Firecrackers.
E
In the context of firecrackers in particular, several questions do arise for
which answers shall have to .be found. What should be the maximum pennissible
sound level for firecrackers? What should be the method of checking whether
a particular firecracker shall emit sound which shall be within permissible
limits? Which authority shall be conferred with the responsibility for ensur.ing F
the effective implementation of these noise levels? What should be the time
limit during which the bursting of firecrackers should be allowed? Should
there be any relaxation in the hours fixed for bursting firecrackers during
festivals? Should the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, be amended in
such a way that the firecrackers manufactured for export in other countdes
ate exempted from the Indian noise standards? G
What is the Maximum sound level that should be permissible for
firecrackers?

At present the maximum permissible sound level for firecrackers as per
the noise standard is provided by Item 89, Sch. I, Table 1.5 of the Environment H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (Protection) Rules, 1986:
"89. Noise Standard for Fire- crackers
A. (i) The manufacture, sale or use of fire-crackers generating
noise level exceeding 125 dB(AI) or 145dB(C)pk at 4 meters
distance from the point of bursting shall be prohibited.
B
(ii) For individual firecrackers constituting the series Qoined
fire-crackers), the above mentioned limit be reduced by 5 log
l 0 (N)dB, where N= Number of crackers joined together."

The learned amicus curiae had on 17th September 200 l, filed certain
C suggestions for issuance of directions for the consideration of this Court. In
it he had suggested that the maximum noise level of firecrackers could be fixed
at 65 dB(A).

It is submitted that the limit of emission of noise prescribed in the Rules
D is too liberal and errs on .higher side. It is suggested that the manufacturers
of Firecrackers or those dealing with them should ensure that only such
crackers are produced and marketed which do not emit noise of more than 65
dB(A).

The Government of India had not accepted the above suggestion of the
E learned Amicus. The Government replied to it in the following words.

"Sound level of 65 dB(A) for firecrackers is too low a level to be
prescribed. The noise levels prescribed in GSR 682 (E) dated 5TH
October, 1999, have been evolved by a technical committee and need
to be complied with."
F
The Fire workers industry also submitted an application to the Union
Minister of Environment and Forest at a meeting convened in New Delhi on
15/04/2004, pleading justification for the increase proposed in the prescribed
firecrackers noise standards from 125 dB(AI) to 135 db(Al) and from 145
dB(c)p k to l55(C)pk.
G
In an Article on 'Firecracker Noise, a Hazard-A review of its Standards',
by, Dr. S.P. Singhal, published in MAPAN- Journal ofMetrology Society of
India, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2002; pp. IO 1-117, Dr. Singh al has stated:

"UK and many other European Economic Commission (EEC)
H countries have adopted an exposure limit of 140dB(lin) peak sound
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 667

pressure level for impulsive or cracker noise for a maximum exposure A
of I 00 impulses per day.

European Standardization Committee CENffC/212 WG3 is also
working to set-up standards on fireworks. Some of the countr!es have
desired the limit to be set at l 12dB(AI) and, several others have
wanted it to be set at125dB(AI) or even at 126-127 dB(AI) at the B
testing distance, with the peak sound pressure level to be 20dB higher
than these limits_ It has fixed a noise level of 120dB(AI) measured at
the testing distance on an ad hoc basis for category 2 fireworks.

Canada has adopted the damage risk criterion of 140dBA peak
sound pressure level at a distance of 5m from the point of explosion C
of the cracker. It is applicable in all categories of fireworks unless
otherwise specified."

Keeping all these submissions in mind' it does seem that the present noise
standards as prescribed in India by the Government of India, are correct and
do not need to be altered at the moment. However, if the Government is of D
the opinion that this sound level needs to be increased or reduced at a later
date it is free to do so.

Should a firecracker be tested on the basis of sound level or on the
basis ofchemical compositions so as to check, does the firecracker correspond E
with the prescribed rules?

For an effective implementation of noise pollution prevention programme, it
is essential that such a method be devised whose enforcement shall not be
problematic. A rule should be so designed, that it is possible for all concerned
to be able to implement it, and thus it is not violated by anyone due to some p
kind of supervening impossibility. Almost all the parties concerned have
expressed a discontent about the present system of enforcement of noise
level pertaining to firecrackers. Lack of infrastructure on account of noise
measuring devices, high cost of such devices, low noise levels prescribed,
expensive rates for getting samples tested, long time taken by the testing
laboratories are a few of the difficulties that have been cited in the enforcement G
of the noise standards.

The Department of Explosives has filed two affidavits before the Court,
the first on 1.4.2003 and the second on 16.2.2004, besides a joint affidavit
which was filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on behalf of the H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Union oflndia on 29.8.2003.
In the aforesaid Affidavits, the stand taken by the Department of
Explosives before the Court is:

(i) that "the firecrackers noise standard prescribed under the Environment
B (Protection) Rules, 1986 requires costly instruments, wide infrastructure and
special expertise in the fields of acoustic science." (para-8 of Affidavit dated
1.4.2003)

(ii) that "the Department is not prepared in terms of manpower equipments
and infrastructure for implementation of the standard which is based on
C measurement of noise level" (para-9 of Affidavit dated 1.4.2003)

(iii) that "the Department of Explosives is of the opinion that the noise
level of firecrackers-can be efficiently controlled by specifying the size, shape,
composition and quantity of chemicals in the fireworks, which are the prime
factors that determine the noise level which entails a lot of R & D work. The
D maximum permissible size of firecrackers and the maximum possible weight of
the chemicals for each variety would be mentioned in the list of authorized
.. explosives.appended to the_ Explosives Rules consequent upon amendment of
the Explosives Rules."(para-15 of Affidavit dated 1.4.2003.)

E (iv) that "the department is already publishing one authorized List of
Explosives, which is updated periodically as and when new items of explosives
are approved by the.Department. The specification for the approved. varieties
are prescribed in the said Authorised List, in terms. of permissible size,
permissible composition of chemicals, mass of charge and other such physical
.and chemical properties. The items which are not listed in the authorized list
F · cannot be manufactured, stored, transported or sold as per various provisions
of the Explosives Rules. Anybody proposing to _manufacture a new variety
of fireworks shall apply to the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur along
with detailed drawings, samples and prescribed fee for testing and approval.
Noise regulations for firecrackers can be implemented effectively through the
G Authorised List in four phases:
(i) The permissible sound level of 125 dB(Ai) notified under the
Rules is taken as the guideline for purpose of implementation by
the Department of Explosives.

(ii) To achieve this, the Department can experiment with various
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 669

sizes, chemicals and compositions in order to devise the optimal A
set of factors for each variety, to result in the desired noise level.

(iii) This set of factors or parameters for each variety of firecrackers
will then be notified under the Authorized List of Explosives
under the Explosives Rules, 1983.

(iv) Any violation from the authorized List exceeding the permitted
B
size, permitted chemical content and chemical composition will
attract legal action."( para-16 of affidavit dated 1.4.2003).

In the Affidavit filed on 16.2.2004, the Chief Controller of Explosives
stated:-
c
(I) That since the role of the Department of Explosives is mainly
administration and enforcement of the Explosives Rules 1983 and
the status of the Department is statutory in nature hence the
Department of Explosives had already taken up the matter and
advised the fireworks manufacturers of developing and producing D
environment friendly fireworks be~ides advocating to promote,
sale and use of only fireworks/crackers meeting the noise standards
prescribed under Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and
amendments thereof.
(2) That it is impractical for Government of India to fix norms regarding
E
chemical composition and the size of the firecrackers. It is the
duty and responsibility of the manufacturer to control size and
composition of firecrackers to comply with the noise limits
prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
(3) That it is impractical owing to the shortage of infrastructure
F
available with the Department of Explosives. The licensing for the
manufacture of firecrackers shall be as per· the Explosives Act,
1884. The Power of the District Magistrate for issuing licenses is
to be retained as per the Rules.
(4) That the matter is now open and the manufacturers are at liberty
G
to manufacture, develop, promote and sell only those fireworks,
which comply with the noise limits prescribed under the
Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 and Explosive Rules, 1983.

(5) That the Department of Explosives had already made mandatory
for the manufacturers of fireworks to mention the noise levels in H
decibel units on firecrackers. The manufacturers are also required
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A to declare on the packing of the boxes that the noise levels
conform to the standards prescribed under the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986. The Department had already included
the prescribed noise limits for firecrackers as additional conditions
oflicenses issued under the Explosives Rules 1983. The authorities
empowered to enforce the Explosives Rules 1983 have been clearly
B defined under the said Rules.

Desirability of f1Xing chemical composition for the firecrackers

The learned Amicus Curiae has suggested that the Government of India
should fix the permissible chemical compositions for the firecrackers. He
C submitted-"To control the noise levels from firecrackers, it was felt that apart
from firecrackers carrying on its label, the extent of its noise level emission,
it may be appropriate ifthe Government was to fix norms regarding chemical
composition and the size of firecrackers so as to confirm to the notified noise
emission norms."
D
In UK as well, the method of determining the noise level of a firecracker,
is by fixing its chemical contents. The British Standard Institute has developed
the British Standard Fireworks, Part 2. Specification for Fireworks (BS 7114:
Part 2) of 1988, which prescribes the maximum permissible quantity of chemicals
in a particular firework. The Standards prescribe the various specifications
E with which the firework has to comply for it to be manufactured or used in
UK

During the course of hearing, submissions in extenso were made on the •
comparative merits and demerits of the two systems namely (i) measuring the
F noise level of firecrackers in decibels and thereby securing the implementation
of rules in this regard, and (ii) securing the implementation of the rules by
restricting and prescribing the size of chemical content, chemical composition
etc. of firecrackers. A tabulated statement of such comparison has ·been
placed on the record by the Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers
Ass·ociation.
G
Briefly stated, it is pointed out that if the firecrackers are allowed to be
manufactured in the manner in which they are being done now and the noise
level is left to be measured at the time of bursting of firecrackers, several
difficulties in implementation would arise, frustrating the regulation. Very
expensive instruments and gadgets are necessary to measure the sound level
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL..tMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 671

of firecrackers. A sound level meter with required capabilities may cost around A
Rs.3 lacs or upwards. Factors like wind velocity, temperature and humidity
have a bearing on the measurement of noise level. The gadgets for monitoring
these factors shall also be required to be installed at the testing field.
Technically trained persons would be required to be posted at every point of
measuring. Testing the sound level of firecrackers at the point of bursting B
would mean that the firecrackers have already reached the market. The persons
to be hauled up would be unwary retailers or users and it would be difficult
to fix the responsibility on the manufacturers or distributors. Difficulties of
proof in the court of law would also arise. The noise level in a firecracker is
not stable. The same firecracker may have a different noise level at the time
of manufacturing and at the time of use on account of climatic changes which C
would naturally occur by the lapse of time and change of place. If the noise
level was to be tested at the factory, the firecracker would have already been
manufactured. There would also be other difficulties inasmuch as the clearance
for marketability would depend on the firecrackers satisfying the test carried
out and at that point of time the firecrackers have already been manufactured
and shall have to be only destroyed if unsuccessful in the test. That apart, D
the manufacturers are spread throughout the country. Some of them are small
scale industries. Either many a testing stations shall have to be established
or else the manufacturers would be required to go to centralized testing
stations carrying untested firecrackers. Both seem to be difficult situations.

On the other hand, prescribing of weight and composition of chemicals
E
to be used in manufacturing firecrackers would mean experiment or analytical
tests being carried out at any one station followed by publication of results
and laid down standards. Experimental checks would be enough to satisfy the
authorities, if the manufacturers were following the laid down standards as
to size of firecrackers, weight and percentile composition of chemicals used. F
This system would enable identification of illegal firecrackers with comparatively
more ease. Size and mass of charge are two basic factors that determine the
noise level of a firecracker. By restricting these two prime factors, noise
standard is achieved more effectively. Though other factors like climatic
conditions may affect the noise level to some extent, but this system seems G
to us to be more dependable and logical, at least on the materials made
available before us.

On a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of evaluating
firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other where the firecrackers
shall be evaluated on the basis of their chemical composition, we feel that a H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A change in the method of evaluating the firecrackers shall surely be more
beneficial. It shall reduce the expenditure that shall otherwise have to be
incurred on expensive instruments that are necessary for the purpose of ~

measuring sound. Th~ firecrackers shall easily be identifiable on the basis of
their mass of charge, and the weight of the chemicals contained in the
firecrackers can also be easily measured. There shall not be too much need
B of the personnel technically qualified for measuring sound, as what would
then be needed, would be to simply weigh the chemical constituents. It shall
to a great extent also be successful in putting an end to illegal fireworks,
which come in bigger sizes, as they now shall be more easily identifiable. In
short, the implementation of the rules relating to firecracker.s shall be easier -
c and carried out by the enforcing authority more easily.

Keeping all these considerations and the various submissions made
before this Court in mind we are of the opinion that a method as proposed
by the learned Amicus Curiae, of fixing the maximum chemical composition
for each and every firecracker, keeping in mind the limit of 125dB(AI) as the
D maximum permissible limit, should be adopted. Every manufacturer should on
the box of each firecracker mention details of its chemical contents as well.
In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention these details
or in cases where the contents of the box do not match to the chemical
formulae as stated on their box, the manufacturer shall be liable for criminal
prosecution.
E
The Department of Explosives should in public interest undertake
necessary research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical
formulae fo~ each firecracker. The Department shall at the time of giving the
license for manufacturing a particular firecracker shall specify the ratio as well
F as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used for the purpose.

Response during hearing

The civic awareness towards prevention of noise pollution in India is
not as high as is expected. It is regrettable to see that people indulge into
G making noise beyond tolerable limits and create health hazard unmindful of
consequences which are likely to befall not only on others but also on
themselves who create noise. The enactment of laws has failed to create the
requisite awareness. The best time to create awareness is in the childhood.
At middle-school level education and in the age of adolescence the children
should be taught in the schools, and in the homes as well by the parents-
H "'
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. A HIGH VOLUME PRoOuCING SOUND SYSTEMS 673
What are the consequences of noise pollution and how much health hazard A
is created by bursting firecrackers?

An awareness towards protecting the environment from all sorts of
pollutants and destructive activities needs to be created in the minds at an
younger age. Suitable courses of study need to be devised by preparing text-
books to be handed down to the youth in its shaping age and whilst they B
are still in schools.

We are happy to note the way the people of the country and especially
the younger generation has responded to the interim order made from time
to time by this Court. News reports came to our notice wherein certain
schools were stated to have organized special lectures for the children pointing C
out the adverse effects of noise pollution created by firecrackers just before
the schools closed for Diwali festival. The children decided not to burst
firecrackers during Diwali Festival. Some volunteered and took a vow to burst
such firecrackers as do not create intolerable noise and confining their such
fun and frolic only to the hours of the day and not to do so during the hours D
of night. Such a response from young boys and g_irls who are our future and ·
the educ'ational institutions on whom lie the responsibility of shaping the
future of this country is most welcome.

Certain incidental and associated issues require to be dealt with and
that we do hereafter. E
Fixing of time limit for bursting firecrackers-ls relaxation desirable
for festivals?

The learned Amicus Curiae in his suggestions filed on 17th September
200 I had suggested that the "Bursting of crackers should be prohibited F
during night time, between 10.00 p.m. and 06.00 a.m.". The Court had agreed
and directed, vide Order dated 27.9.2001-"The use offireworks or firecrackers
shall not be permitted except between 6.00 a.m. and 10.p.m. No fireworks or
firecrackers shall be used between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. The Government
of India, has also expressed its opinion that there should be no relaxation in G
the time limit for bursting firecrackers. Relaxation of restrictions on ~ursting
of crackers from 10.00 p.m. _to 6.00 a.m. shall not be given as it is night time.
During the night time, people sleep and the high level of noise has deleterious
effects on the health and well being of the people."

Several interlocutory applications have been filed in this Court, wherein H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A it was pleaded that restriction on bursting of firecrackers in the night should
be removed during the Diwali Festival. Similar relaxation was demanded for
other festivals. These applications highlighted practices prevalent in some of
the western countries wherein such relaxation is allowed. We do not think that
we will be justified in granting any such relaxation. Indian society is pluralistic.
People of this great country belong to different castes and communities, have
B belief in different religions and customs and celebrate different festivals. We
are tolerant for each other. There is unity in diversity. If relaxation is allowed
to one there will be no justification for not permitting relaxation to others and
if we do so the relaxation will become the rule. It will be difficult to enforce
the restriction.
c The Calcutta High Court in the case of Moulana Mufti Syed Md.
Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1999) Calcutta 15 has
expressed the following view:

"The condition of the European countries, England and America
D cannot be equated with the i.:ondition prevailing in the State of West
Bengal, particularly in the City of Calcutta.. West Bengal has got its
own peculiar problem and this Court cannot decide a matter looking
at Europe or America where the amenities and the facilities are better.
, Density of population is very thin. Roads are maintained in a perfect
order. Traffic noise is insignificant. The use of horns by vehicles is
E a thing which is prohibited there unless in case of emergency. People
are disciplined. Traffic moves in a disciplined manner. No horns are
there. The Ambient Noise Level in those countries are not at par with
those noise level in the City of Calcutta and/or in different parts of
State of West Bengal.
F Accordingly, whatever may be decided by the European countries
or America, cannot have any direct bearing on the fixation of the
sound level in the State of West Bengal. In other civilized countries,
cars move without making any noise or sound. Condition of the roads
is such that it cannot create any noise beyond tolerance. People in
G those countries are not in the habit of creating unnecessary sounds
but in our country because of the gift of the technology sound has
become a source of pleasure for few people including some young
people. Use of unnecessary horn in vehicles has become a part and
parcel of Indian culture".

H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. II: HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 675
The picture of the entire country compared with the State of West A
Bengal does not bear any material difference. Thus a rule, practice or provision
as to relaxation in Europe or America may not be of much help for us. They
do not have many festivals or celebrations round the year. Their festivals and
events are only at nationa!Jevel and one for all, unlike oors. Further, in the
European countrie~ or even in America an insignificant percentage of the
population indulges in bursting crackers. Very few families, mainly Indian, in B
these countries celebrate the festival of Diwali and burst crackers. Thus the
noise pollution produced by this small use of firecrackers is not a cause of
worry in these countries.

The situation in India is almost the opposite. The streets are congested C
and the density of population per square kilometer is one of the highest in
the world. Firecrackers are burst in almost all the houses, thus leading to
pollution in the form of noise and smoke-both on a large scale, making it
a cause of worry.

It is a judicially noticeable fact that in advanced countries there is a D
move for collective celebration of festivals. For example, in United States, on
May Day, a show of fireworks is arranged outside the city. People assemble
in large numbers to witness such show which is officially arranged by the
State. Such example can be emulated in our country. People belonging to that
section of the society which wishes to celebrate a festival or an occasion may
be encouraged to organize such event collectively and may have a show of E
fireworks away from the residential locality. Such a move would save the
people from the hazardous effects of noise pollution caused by fireworks and
at the same time bring the people together and contribute in developing
closeness, unity and brotherhood.

In our opinion, the total restriction on bursting firecrackers between 10
F
pm and 6 am must continue without any relaxation in favour of anyone.

Whether such restriction is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution?

The affidavit filed by Mr. Mariappan, the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu G
Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers Association, alle~es the restriction on
bursting firecrackers to amount to infringement of religious rights under
Article 25. He says-

"Therefore, the interference with the date and time of celebrating
the festivals, amounts to infringement of religious rights under Article H
676 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A 25 and the limitation under Article 21 does not cause any health
hazard."

The Court by restricting the time of bursting the firecrackers has not in
any way violated the religious rights of any person as enshrined under Article
25 of the Constitution. The festival of Diwali is mainly associated with pooja
B perfonned on the auspicious day and not with firecrackers. In no religious text
book it is written that Diwali has to be celebrated by bursting crackers. Diwali
is considered as a festival of lights not of noises. Shelter in the name of
religion c,annot be sought for, for bursting firecrackers and that too at odd
hours.
c Another ar&ument that has been put forward to remove the restriction
during festivals is that they are celebrated by most of the people and that an
inconvenience to a few should not become the reason for restraining a greater
lot.

D In P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR (1993) Kerala
1, it has been said "However wide a right is, it cannot be as wide, as to
destroy similar or other rights in others. Jefferson said: No one has a natural
right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. J.S. Mill said: If all
mankind minus one were of one opinion, and if only one person was of
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
E person, than he, ifhe had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

If at all the people feel it necessary to burst firecrackers they can
choose and go for such firecrackers which on being burst emit colours or
lights mainly and produce very little or no sound. Their use can be permitted.
The Department of Explosives can, while working out fonnulae for firecrackers,
F also along side classify the crackers into two categories that could be: (a)
sound emitting crackers, and (b) colours/light emitting crackers. A few examples
of such colour emitting crackers are, snake tablets, sparklers, pencils, hunters,
chakri, colour rockets, flowerpots, parachutes, etc. Category (b) firecrackers
may not have restriction as to timings. Though, it would need expert examination
G and opinion if colour emitting crackers also emit fumes and gases which
though not source of noise pollution yet would cause air pollution, equally
bad. Till such time the Department of Explosives makes any such classification
there shall be a total ban on bursting of firecrackers between I 0 p.m. and 6
am.

H Can an exception be carved out for firecrackers meant for export
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE . .t HIGH VOW ME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 677

exclusively. A
Should the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, be amended in such
a way that the firecrackers manufactured for export and use in other countries
are exempted from the Indian noise standards?

Mr: Mariappan, the Secretary of The Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces B
Manufactures' Association, had in his affidavit dated 8th February 2002,
requested the Court to remove the restriction on manufacturing fireworks
meant for exporting only and which are in excess of the sound levels prescribed
for fireworks within the country. It is submitted, "the Indian Standards on
noise of firecrackers do not have any relevance to firecrackers intended for C
export. But the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibits manufacture of
firecrackers generating noise level exceeding 125 dB(AI) or 145 dB(C)pk at 4
meters distance from the point of bursting; There is a·total restriction on the
manufacture of firewotks and crackers without any discrimination being made
between firecrackers that are manufactured for use in India and those for use
in foreign countries. The trade having been globalised, Indian firecrackers D
have to necessarily comply with foreign standards if they are to enter into
the international markets. The Department of Explosives is already having
various provisions laid down under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the
Explosives Rules, 1983, which govern the export of fireworks. Prior approval
from the Department of Explosives is imperative for every export of fireworks.
Therefore the comprehensive position now imposed on firecrackers should be E
modified exempting firecrackers that are manufactured for use in foreign
countries, from the purview of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the
Rules framed thereunder."

The Court on the above-mentioned submission sought for the view of F
the Department of Explosives. The Department has expressed the view that
firecrackers that are to be sold in foreign countries may be excluded from the
purview of the noise standards provided they conform to the rules for
manufacturing the goods for export. They also submitted -"The firecrackers
manufactured and sold for export purpose may be excluded from the purview
of the firecrackers' noise standards provided they follow the rules for G
manufacturing of goods for export. This will enable the manufac.turers to
compete in the world market with the other suppliers of firecrackers. The
firecrackers manufactured for export shall have a different colour code and a
clear print indicating that they are not to be sold in India."

H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A We are inclined to agree with the view of the Department of Explosives.
Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured and bear higher
noise levels subject to the following conditions: (i) The manufacturer should
be permitted to do so only when he has an export order with him and not
otherwise; (ii) The noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to the
noise standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be
B exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers should have a different
colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) The firecrackers
should have a clear print on them stating that they are not to be sold in India.
In case these firecrackers are found being sold in Indian territory, then the
manufacturer and the dealer selling these goods should be held liable.
c How to check/control noise pollution
The need for checking noise pollution as highlighted by the petitioners
and several intervenors deserves appreciation.

D Need for specific legislation to control and prevent noise pollution still
needs some emphasis. Undoubtedly, some laws have been enacted. Yet,
compared with the legislation in developed countries India is still lagging
behind in enacting adequate and scientific legislations. We need to have one
simple but specific and detailed legislation dealing with several aspects referable
to noise pollution and providing measures of control therefor.
E
There is an equal need of developing mechanism and infrastructure for
enforcement of the prevalent laws. Those who are entrusted with the task of
enforcing laws directed towards controlling noise pollution, must be so trained
as to acquire expertise in the matter of fighting against noise pollution -by
taking preventing and .deterrent measures, both. They need to be eqnipped
F with the requisite equipments such as audio meters as would help them in
detecting the level of noise pollution more so when it crosses the pennissible
Jfmits and the source thereof.

Above all, there is need for creating general awareness towards the
G hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in our country the people
generally lack consciousness of the iU effects which noise pollution creates
and how the society including they themselves stand to benefit by preventing
generation and emission of noise pollution. The target area should be
educational institutions and more particularly schools. The young children of ,._
impressionable age should be motivated to desist from playing with firecrackers,
H use of high sound producing equipments and instruments on festivals, religious
IN RE: NOISE POLL.-IMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 679

and social functions, family get-togethers and celebrations etc. which cause A
noise pqllµtion. Suitable ~hapters can be added into text-books which teach -
civic sense to the children and teach them how to be good and responsible
citizen which would include learning by heart of various fundamental duties
and that would obviously include learning not' to create noise pollution and
to prevent if generated by others_ Holding of special talks .and lectures can B
be organized in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and
the role of the children in preventing it For, these purposes the State must
play its role by the support and cooperation of non-government organizations
(NGOs) can also be enlisted.

Similar awareness needs to be created in police and civil administration C
by means of carrying out a special drive to make them understand the various
measures to curb the problems and the laws on the subject. Residents Welfare
Associations (RAWs), service clubs (such as Rotary International and Lions
International) and Societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as part of
their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local
administration. Festival and ceremonies wherein the fireworks and crackers D ·
are customarily burst can be accornpanied by earmarking a place and time
wherein and when all the people can come together and witness or view a
show of fireworks dispensing with the need of crackers being burst in the ·
residential areas and that too which is done without any regard to timings.
The manufacturers can be encouraged to make such fireworks as would E
display more the colours rather than make noise.

Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems
has to be regulated even the playing of high sound instruments like drums,
tom-toms, trumpets; bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable
limits need to be regu_lated. The law enforcing agencies must be equipped F
with necessary instruments and facilities out of 'Yhich sourid level meters
conforming to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity.

Preventive measures need to be directed more effectively at the source.
To illustrate, the horns which if fitted with the automobiles would create
hawking sound beyond permissible limits, should not be allowed to be G
manufactured or sold in the market as once they are available they are likely
to be used.

Loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipments or gadgets which
produce offending noise once detected as violating the law, should be liable
H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A to be seized and confiscated by making provision in the law in that behalf.
Prohibiting the sale of such firecrackers which create noise pollution by
producing noise beyond permissible limits is practically unmanageable. A
better option certainly is to prescribe the chemical contents and composition
for each type of firecrackers to effectively curb noise pollution. The Chief
B Controller of Explosives has also been agreeable to take steps in this regard
but has pointed out difficulties attributable to shortage of personnel and non-
availability of lab facilities and requisite equipments for this purpose.

We hasten to add that during the course of the proceedings the parties
have been generally agreeable to solicit directions on the lines as indicated
C hereinabove. There should be no difficulty in issuing directions and ensuring
compliance to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Wherever there are
difficulties they have to be sorted out in the larger public interest.

DIRECTIONS
D It is hereby directed as under:-

l Firecrackers

I. On a comp~ison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of
evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other
E where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of chemical
composition, we feel that the latter method is more practical and
workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until
replaced by_ a better system.

2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake necessary
F research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical
formulae for each type or category or class of firecrackers. The DOE
shall specify the proportion/composition as well as the maximum
pennissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.

3. The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two
G categories- (i) Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii) colour/light emitting
fuecrackers .
. 4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers
between ·to pin and 6 am. It is not necessary fo impose restrictions
as to time on bursting of colour/light emitting firecrackers.
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·IMPl.E. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOIJDSPE. It HIGH VOLUME PROOUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 681

5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker mention A
details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as
laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer
to mention the details or in cases where the contents of the box do
not match the chemical formulae as stated on the box, the manufacturer
may be held liable.
B
6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured bearing
higher noise levels subject to the following conditions: (i) The
manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has an
export order with him and not otherwise; (ii) The noise levels for these
firecrackers should conform to the noise standards prescribed in the c
country to which they are intended to be exported as per the export
order; (iii) These firecrackers ·should have a different colour packing,
from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) They must carry a
declaration printed thereon something like 'not for sale in India' Qr
'only for export to country AB' and so on.
D
II. Loudspeakers

1. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where
loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is
being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise
standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower. E
2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or
sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between
10. p~m. and 6.a.m.) except in public emergencies.

3. The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall F
not exceed by more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air quality standard
specified for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the
private place.

III. Vehicular Noise

No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10 p.m. and G
6 a.m.) in residential area except in exceptional circumstances.

JV. Awareness

1. There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous
effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text- H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A books which teach civic sense to the chi-ldren and youth at the initial/
early level of education. Special talks and lectures be organised in the
schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the
children and younger generation in preventing it. Police and civic
administration should be trained to understand the various methods
to curb the problem and also the laws on the subject.
B
2. The State must play an active role in this process. Residents
Welfare Associations, service Clubs and Societies engaged in
preventing noise pollution as a part of their projects need to be
encouraged and actively involved by the local administration.

C :>. Special public awarene,ss campaigns in anticipation of festivals,
e~ents and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are.likely to be
used, need to be carried out.

The abovesaid guidelines are issued in exercise of power conferred on
this Court under Articles 141 and 142 ef the Constitution of India. These
·D would remain in force until modified by this Court or superseded by an
appropriate legislation.

V Generally

l. The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of
E loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipments as are found to
be creating noise beyond the permissible limits.

2. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
makes provision for specifying ambient air quality standards in respect
'
of noise for different areas/zones, categorization of the areas for the
F purpose of implementation of noise standards, authorizing the
authodties for enforcement and achievement of laid down standards.
The Central Government/State Governments shall take steps for laying
down such standards and notifying the authorities where it has not
alreaay been done.
G Though, the matters are closed in consonance with the directions as
above issued in public interest, there will be liberty of seeking further directions
as and when required and in particular in the event of any difficulty arising
in implementing the directions.

The CWP, CA and all pending IAs be treated as disposed of.
H
IN RE: NOISE POLL.·JMPLE. OF THE LAWS FOR REST. USE OF LOUDSPE. & HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS 683

Before parting, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation A
of valuable assistance rendered by Shri Jitendra Sharma, Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Sandeep Narain, Advocate (and earlier by late Shri Pankaj
Kalra, Advocate) who highlighted several relevant aspects of the issues
before us and also helped in fonnulating the guidelines issued as above.

B.B.B. Matters disposed of. B