Every citizen is allowed to enjoy their rights in letter and spirit subject to reasonable restrictions

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 11th January 2020  

Balwant Singh V. Commissioner of police and Anr. [(2015) 4 SCC 801]

Facts of the case: 

1. Appellant is a retired director general of police and is a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan. And to settle after retirement he built a house in a locality near Vidhan Sabha. 
2. The appellant to his misfortune noticed that very frequently, thousand/hundreds of people belonging to political/non-political parties would gather on the road approaching to Vidhan Sabha, which is in front of his house, with agitated mood and would undertake their Protests March or “Dharna” or “Procession” for expressing their grievances. The protestors then would use extensively loudspeakers by erecting temporary stage on the road and go on delivering speeches one after the other throughout the day which sometimes used to continue for indefinite period regardless of time. Since there used to be a gathering of thousands of people, the demonstrators would indiscriminately make use of the compound walls of nearby houses including that of the appellant’s house to ease themselves frequently at any time.
3. To regulate such events and to maintain law and order, state and police administration used to put barricades and allot hundreds of police personnel for duty. These barricades are used to installed just in front of Appellant’s house gate and these police personnel would also use the walls of residential houses including appellant’s to ease. Residents of that area are unhappy because, neither they were in a position to stay comfortably and peacefully inside the house or do any work due to constant noise pollution nor were in a position to come out of their house due to constant fear of insecurity and restrictions put by the State.
4. The appellant was one of the most affected persons whose living in his house had become impossible due to these activities and finding no solution to the problem faced, compelled him to first approach the Commissioner of Police and make an oral complaint but finding that no action was taken, filed a written complaint on 21.11.2011.
5. Since the Commissioner of Police did not take any action on the complaint, the appellant, on 06.03.2012, filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi under the provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The NHRC forwarded the appellant’s complaint to the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC) for taking appropriate action in accordance with law.
6. Despite issuance of the aforementioned directions, the State did not ensure its compliance and on the other hand, some miscreants attacked the appellants house and hence out of disgust, the appellant was compelled to file writ petition before High Court of Rajasthan. Single Judge of High Court of Rajasthan passed an order regarding this matter but being aggrieved and not satisfied by that order appellant and organisation Forum, Prevention of environmental and Sound Pollution filed PIL and come before Supreme Court.

Judgment:

1. Taking into consideration gravity of the matter; Supreme Court has given directions concerning use of firecrackers, use of loud speakers, vehicular noise and awareness to be created for the same.
2. Court said that there is need for creating general awareness towards hazardous effects of noise pollution. Special talks and lectures to be organised in schools to highlight threat of noise pollution and role of young generation for preventing it and state must play an active role in this regard. 
3. The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipment as are found to be creating noise beyond the permissible limits. 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, categorisation of the areas for the purpose of implementation of noise standards, authorising the authorities 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 already been done.
4. Supreme Court, accordingly, direct the respondents to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in Para 174 to 178 of the judgment of this Court in Noise Pollution (V), In Re – Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems^[1], and for ensuring its compliance, whatever remedial steps which are required to be taken by the State and their concerned department(s), the same be taken at the earliest to prevent/check the noise pollution as directed in the aforesaid directions.

^[1] [(2005) 5 SCC 733]