Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Allahabad HC Bans DJs And Passes Directions For Regulating Use of Loudspeakers

Posted in: Civil Laws
Mon, Aug 26, 19, 12:25, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 1 - hits: 9555
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.

It is most heartening and most refreshing to learn that in a major significant development, the Allahabad High Court has in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Sushil Chandra Srivastava and Another Vs State of UP and Others in Writ – C No. – 1216 of 2019 delivered on August 20, 2019 has very rightly imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality. There can be no denying it. This extremely landmark and most laudable judgment was delivered by Allahabad High Court while hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Sushil Chandra Srivastava and one more person.

To start with, this noteworthy judgment authored by Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel for himself and Justice Pankaj Bhatia first and foremost sets the ball rolling by pointing out that, This writ proceedings has been instituted by two petitioners who are aggrieved by indiscriminate use of Loudspeaker in a residential area regardless of time. This grievance is heard time and again from many people living in different places. Those who are weak, sensitive, vulnerable and cannot hear loud noises have to bear the maximum brunt.

Why should they suffer for no fault of theirs?
While elaborating further, it is then further pointed out that, The grievance of the petitioners is that the District administration has installed huge L.C.Ds equipped with amplifiers in the residential area. They are resident of Hashimpur Road, Prayagraj, which is a densely populated area. The L.C.D. starts from 4.00 A.M. till midnight regularly without any break with full sound. The L.C.D. creates sound problem as well as public nuisance in the residential area. It is stated that the mother of petitioner no. 1 is aged about 85 years and she is suffering from multiple age related diseases and the high noise pollution is causing serious problem in her ears and heart. It is further stated that the son of petitioner no. 2 is studying in Class 12th and due to sound pollution he is unable to prepare for the examination.

It is stated that in the area there are three hospitals/nursing homes, namely, Yashlok Hospital, Alka Hospital and Astha Clinic. A large number of patients are admitted in these hospital, some of them are suffering from heart and other serious ailments. They are also affected by high noise pollution.

Moving on, it is then pointed out in this judgment that, Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that authorities have failed to enforce the law and directions issued by the Supreme Court in a series of the decisions. It is stated that similar L.C.Ds and speakers have been installed all over the city which have raised the noise pollution level to an impermissible limit under the Law. It is stated that in spite of the law laid down in the case of NOISE POLLUTION (V), IN RE, 2005 (5) SCC 733 and the statutory rules framed by the Central Government, on account of the inaction on the part of the concerned authority are feeling inconvenience and their health is affected by the noise pollution.

Going forward, it is then further pointed out that, It is a pity that administration is not serious in taking any action against those who breach the law and directions of the Supreme Court. In India the people generally do not consider the noise as sort of pollution, hence, most of the people are not fully conscious about the effect of the noise pollution on their health. The Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 and Section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has made the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (for short Noise Pollution Rules) to control of noise producing and generating source. Since noise pollution affects human health, it needs to be stopped immediately.

Furthermore, while sparing no punches it is then held clearly and categorically that, Having due regard to the materials on the record, we are constrained to observe that the administration either, appears to be totally oblivious of the law and directions issued by the Supreme Court or there is gross inaction on its part to enforce the statutory rules and the directions of the Supreme Court which are binding upon all the authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution. No valid reasons have been furnished by the authorities for not complying the law.

For the sake of brevity, let us now come directly to the crucial part of this highly commendable judgment. It is held clearly, categorically and convincingly that, In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in above case, we deem it our duty to enforce the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Noise pollution and other directions issued by the Court from time to time.

Most importantly, it is then held by the Allahabad High Court in this extremely laudable judgment that, In the ultimate analysis we are of the firm view that the law relating to Noise pollution need to be strictly complied with in larger public interest. Accordingly in addition to directions issued by the Supreme Court in NOISE POLLUTION (V), IN RE (supra), we issue the following directions:

(i) The District Magistrate shall give adequate publicity in leading newspapers regarding this direction and Rules, 2000. He shall notify the name of the authority under the Rules, 2000 and his contact number. Detailed notice shall be put up in the offices of Divisional Commissioners, District Magistrates, District Court Premises, Police Stations, Municipal Corporation Offices, Development Authorities Offices and prominent places of the city.

(ii) A toll free number shall be provided to the citizens to make the complaints. If a loudspeaker, public address system, DJ, a Musical Instrument, a sound amplifier or any sound producing instrument is used beyond the permissible limit of sound, a person can make a complaint on telephone number 100 to police or toll free number provided by the authorities. The concerned Police of the area will immediately visit the spot and shall measure the noise level by the equipment (Noise meter application) supplied to it. If it is found that there is violation of Rules, 2000 it will stop the nuisance forthwith and shall inform the appropriate authority regarding complaint and action taken by it. The authority shall take action against offender in terms of Rules 7 of Rules, 2000. The name and identity of the complainant shall not be disclosed to the wrong doer or to any person. Under Rule 7 of Rules, 2000 an oral complaint can be made. The facility shall also be made available to send the complaints by SMS, e-mail and Whatsapp. Anonymous complaint shall also be entertained. All the complaints received by the Police under Rule 7 of Rules, 2000 shall be maintained in a register and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the competent authority. The action taken shall be recorded by the Police in the register.

(iii) Under the Rules, 2000 no permission for DJ shall be granted by the authority for the reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at the minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits under the Schedule of the Rules, 2000. A DJ is made up of several amplifiers and joint sound emitted by them is more than thousand dB (A). They are serious threat to human health particularly children, senior citizens and patients admitted in the hospitals.

(iv) The team constituted by the District Magistrate shall make regular visit of their area particularly before commencement of any festival and apprise the organizers regarding compliance of the Rules, 2000 and the directions of Supreme Court and this Court.

(v) All places of the worship of all religion shall be bound by the provisions of the Rules, 2000 and directions issued by the Supreme Court and this Court. Any breach of the Rules, 2000 shall be treated to be violation of fundamental right of a citizen.

(vi) The District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police shall convene a meeting before commencement of festivals like Dussehera/Durga Puja, Holi, Shab-e-barat, Muharram, Easter and Christmas festival with organizers and representatives of civil society, to impress upon them to observe the law strictly and in the event of failure the legal consequences that may follow.

(vii) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of Noise Pollution Rules shall be liable for a penalty in terms of Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Non-compliance of the rules attracts the imprisonment for a term which may extend to Rs 1,00,000/-. It is the duty of the authorities of the State to ensure that the offences under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act are duly registered.

(viii) The State Government is directed to categorize the areas in all the cities of State into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of the noise standard in terms of Rule 3(2) of Rules, 2000. A fresh exercise be conducted in the light of definition provide under Rule 2 (c) and (f) of Rules, 2000. We find that in Prayagraj the zones have been made in breach of the above mentioned Rules.

(ix) The competent authority under the Rules, 2000 and the SHO/Inspector of concerned Police Station are charged personally with the duty of ensuring compliance of the order of the Supreme Court, extracted above, the Rules, 2000 and this order, failing which they shall be answerable to this Court in contempt jurisdiction. We grant liberty to any aggrieved person to approach this court for appropriate order for compliance of the above order/directions.

Finally, it is then held that, A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to issue necessary directions to the appropriate authorities accordingly. The compliance report shall be sent to the Registrar General of this Court, who shall place it on the record of this case. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

In the ultimate analysis, it has to be said with a considerable degree of satisfaction that the Allahabad High Court in this landmark case has very rightly issued the requisite directions as enumerated above to contain noise pollution. There is no reason as to why they should not be complied with. Every citizen of India is entitled to lead a life free from noise pollution. This alone explains as to why the Allahabad High Court has spoken out remarkably about the directions to be implemented to ensure that noise pollution is controlled to a large extent. We all saw how just about a month back on July 22 even the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Reet Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and others too passed a similar order to check the unregulated use of loud speakers. Such extremely laudable judgments deserves to be implemented in totality.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top