Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 14th February 2020
Masroor Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P. (WRIT-C No. 43167 of 2019)
Facts
The Petitioner no. 1 had moved application before the authority concerned for license/permission to use amplifiers and loudspeakers on two mosques, namely, Masjid Abu Bakar Siddiqui and Masjid Rahmani both situated in a village in Jaunpur for the purpose of Azaan for Namaz. The Petitioner no. 1 was granted permission by Respondent no.4 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj, Jaunpur) to use sound equipment on Masjid Abu Bakar Siddqui for the period b/w 15.01.2018 to 14.07.2018 for specified times. There was no permission on record with the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers in respect of other mosque i.e. Masjid Rahmani.
It was alleged that at some point of time, the said sound equipment had to be removed from the mosque for repairs, but when they were being reinstalled, the local area police prevented Petitioner no. 1 from doing so. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by Petitioner no. 1 and the same was disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to move a fresh application for renewal of license to use amplifiers and loudspeakers in the mosque in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the above direction, a representation was submitted before Respondent no. 4, who in turn called for a report from the Circle Officer, Shahganj (C.O). The report state that a spot inspection was done wherein it was found that in the area of both the mosques, there resided a mixed population of Hindus and Muslims. If any part is allowed to use sound amplifiers, the tension betweenw the two groups would escalate, disturbing the peace in that area.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate along with the C.O. had also visited the area and it was found that on account of use of sound amplifying system in the area, there is a grave tension amongst the villagers comprising of persons of both religious groups of Hindus and Muslims. In the past also, dispute on this score had taken a serious turn. Therefore, in order to maintain law and order and peace in the area, it is appropriate not to grant permission to any group to use sound amplifying system on any religious place. Accordingly, the license of the Petitioners cannot be renewed or extended and no fresh permission was granted. The Petitioner challenged this order before the HC.
Petitioner’s contention
The Petitioner had submitted that use of amplifiers and loudspeakers on the mosques for 2 minutes 5 times a day would neither cause noise pollution nor would disturb the tranquillity of the area. It is an essential part of their religious practice and it has become necessary with the increasing population to give call to the people on amplifiers and loudspeakers to come and pray.
Respondent’s contention
The Respondent had submitted that the Petitioners were refused permission to use sound amplifying system at the mosque not only for the inherent reason of noise pollution but in order to maintain peace and tranquillity in the area.
Held
The Court observed that the people of India have not still realised that noise in itself a sort of pollution. Internationally, especially in USA, England and other such countries, people are conscious of noise pollution and the health hazards relating to it. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter refereed as ‘Rules’) categorically lay down that loudspeakers or public address systems shall not be used except after obtaining written permission of the authority. The authority competent to grant permission is defined under s. 2 (c) of the Rules to mean an include any authority or officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, including the District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or any other officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
In the instant case, the Petitioner no. 1 was granted permission to use sound equipment on the concerned mosque for a limited period. Thereafter, the permission was not extended or renewed on account of law and order situation.
The Court observed that the right guaranteed under Art. 25 (1) of the Constitution of India (right to practice, profess and propagate religion) was subject to wider right under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Thus, both have to be read together and construed harmoniously. The Court cited the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others, 2000 (7) SCC 282 wherein it was held that the rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to public order, morality and health. No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums and if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of the others including that of not being disturbed. In Sant Kumar and others Vs. Collector, Saharanpur and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1664 , the Court held that right to practice one’s religion freely is a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India but the said right of religion and right to privacy which is also a fundamental right has to be read together and nobody has a right to practice religion in a way so as to invade privacy of others. The Court observing thus appealed to the public at large to refrain from using loudspeakers for various religious practices such as Akhand Ramayan, Kirtan, etc. as it causes inconvenience to public and creates noise pollution.
In Noise Pollution (V), IN RE, 2005 (8) SCC 796, the SC opined that the fundamental right of a person under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India of freedom of speech and expression are not absolute and no one can claim fundamental right to create noise by amplifying sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers as every citizen has a fundamental right to live in peace, comfort and quietness of his house.
The Court followed the cardinal principle of equitable jurisdiction that HC should maintain social balance by interfering where necessary and refusing where it is against social interest and public good. The Court refused to interfere in the case by using their extraordinary jurisdiction as it may result into social imbalance.
Leave a Reply