Loudspeakers At Religious Places: Bombay High Court Agrees To Hear Plea Alleging Contempt Of Landmark Noise Pollution Judgement

A division bench of Justices AA Sayed and Abhay Ahuja agreed to hear the plea on June 14 after it was mentioned yesterday.

Contempt petitioner Santosh Shrikrishna Pachalag said that in 2018, there were at least 2,940 illegal and unauthorized loudspeakers (without permission) in use by various religious institutions such as Temples, Mosques, Churches, Gurudwaras & Buddha-vihars in the entire State of Maharashtra, according to an RTI reply received by him.

He said there was deliberate non-compliance of the High Court's October 2016 order directing strict adherence to the Noise Pollution Rules. The court had sought implementation of its order within 2-3 months. It included a direction to the Railways to decide on noise pollution due to the sound of whistles in the night.

Pachalag's contempt petition is against the following persons, Sunil Porwal, then secretary (Home Department), KP Bakshi, then additional chief secretary, Satish Mathur, then director general of police, Dattatray Padsalgikar, then DGP, Hemant Nagrale, then CP and Sanjay Kumar, former Police Commissioner.

"The Respondents have no respect to this Hon'ble Court and they have willfully disobeyed and have committed breach of directions issued by this Hon'ble Courtin above Cri. PIL and other connected PILs and therefore the Respondent authorities are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the contempt petition states.

Pachalag had filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court in 2014 seeking an order for the removal of loudspeakers illegally installed on certain mosques in Navi Mumbai.

In a judgement delivered in August 2016, a bench led by then Bombay High Court judge Justice Abhay Oka passed orders in a clutch of pleas, including Pachlag's PIL, expanding their scope to say that that the breach of any Noise Pollution Rules shall amount to infringement of Art. 21 of the Constitution and they do not afford any right under article 25 and 19(1).

"All places of worship of all religions are bound by the provisions of the Noise Pollution Rules and no religion or sect can claim fundamental right of using loud­speakers or public address systems or instruments creating noise as a part of right conferred by Articles 19(1)(a) (Right to freedom of speech and expression) and 25 of the Constitution of India."

It went on to note, "Thus, we hold that all places of worship of all religions shall scrupulously follow the provisions of the Noise Pollution Rules and no such place of worship is entitled to use loudspeakers or public address systems without obtaining permission under Sub­Rule (1) of Rule 5. Needless to add that in case a place of worship is in a silence zone, the law laid down by this Court which is applicable to silence zones shall squarely apply to such places."

According to the RTI response, temples had 1029 illegal loudspeakers while mosques had 1766, churches had 84 such speakers, Gurudwaras 22 and Budhvihars 39.

"It is clear that   concerned religious institutions, such as, Temples, Mosques/DargasChurches, Gurudwaras & Buddhavihars have not obtained necessary permissions as required under law for installation of loud-speakers."

The illegal loudspeakers cause disturbance, annoyance to public at large specifically old persons, sick peoples, students, infants and not only human being but also birds, animals and ultimately environment is being affected thereby the same.

"[It] is causing heavy noise pollution and is in clear violation and breach directions contained under Judgment & Order dated 16.08.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court and therefore the Respondents are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the plea states.

According to the order, any public address systems or sound amplifiers shall not be used between 10 pm and 6 am. The exceptions, in case of a cultural event, can be provided between 10 pm and 12 pm, but for a maximum of 15 days It was held that the power of fixing the period cannot be delegated and neither can be different for different districts and, hence, to that extent, the notification dated 31st July 2013, was held illegal.