Right to profess religion cannot override the Right to Environment

Right to profess religion cannot override the Right to Environment written by Prapti Kothari student of Institute of Law, Nirma university

CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA V. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. AIR 2000 SC 2773

MATERIAL FACTS

The Church of God (Full Gospel) in India (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was a Pentecostal Christian hall of worship. For the presentation of their prayers, it employed loudspeakers and read-aloud prayers with drums, guitars, and other instrumental objects. The appellant was situated in the same area as the welfare association of K.K.R. Majestic Colony (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The respondent filed a grievance to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board alleging that noise pollution was caused by the church and thus created inconvenience for the residents.

Depending on the grievance, a check of the noise pollution in the area was carried out by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Board. The evaluation exhibited that the noise emission was owing to the locomotion of the vehicles. The respondent then appealed to the High Court for a criminal petition requesting authorization to the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police to take measures in that respect.

The High Court maintained that in its requests, the respondent was reasonable. The study indicated hardly anything more than that the appellant was not exclusively liable for noise pollution, but that it had contributed to the current noise pollution problem. The Court ordered both the SP and the Inspector to take the appropriate measures to minimize noise pollution by initiating steps toward noise-causing vehicles and to maintain the Church’s speakers at a lower volume. The appellant, aggrieved by this ruling, moved to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

• Whether the right to religion can supersede the right to an environment free from pollution?
• Whether the directions of the High Court undermine the right to profess and practice Christianity guaranteed under Art. 25 and Art. 26 of the Constitution?
• Whether the HC’s (i.e. Appa Rao’s case) judgment allowed the authorities entrusted to intervene in religious practices?

RULE OF LAW

• Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Madras City Police Act, 1888
• Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889
• Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

ANALYSIS

This case addresses some rather critical issues: whether a single group or faction of that community can assert the right to contribute to noise pollution on the grounds of religion, in a nation with many religions and diverse cultures or belief systems? Is it reasonable to bang on drums or recite prayers using mics and loudspeakers to interrupt the neighborhood’s equilibrium or peacefulness?

The Court observed that it was not necessary to cope with the claim with regard to the rights under Articles 25 and 26 in-depth. It claimed that no religion mandates or professes that prayers must be conducted by amplifying the voice or banging drums. In that case, if the practice exists, the rights of everyone else should not be negatively impacted. It also justified that no right is unconditional to possess. The contentment of one’s rights must be compatible with the gratification of everybody else’s rights.

The court adopted the perspective that the issue at hand had no obligation to attach religious context to it. Yes, the judgment on which the High Court depends (Appa Rao’s case) authorized the entrusted officials to undertake steps on the basis of the directions established. The principles established in the case of Appa Rao were centered on the acts cited above.

Where it is not within reach to call forth voluntary equilibrium in the unrestricted movement of social powers, the State must intervene in order to correctly determine the tension between conflicting interests. A specific fundamental right does not reside in a sealed enclosure in seclusion. The fundamental right of an individual will also have to live side by side, in accordance with the fundamental right of others, with a fair and legitimate operation of power by the State in the context of the Directive principles, for the promotion of public welfare.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and it was held that the right to religion provided pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is subject to public order and morality and that no religion may preach on large amplifiers or loudspeakers to pray, triggering discomfort and damage to other people’s health.

Practices that bother, elderly or ill people, pupils or kids sleeping in the early hours or throughout the day, or individuals engaging in other pursuits, cannot be tolerated in a functioning society in the guise of religion. It should not be overlooked that infants are accredited to retain their natural right to sleep in a healthy environment. A student studying for his test is supposed to focus on his learning without the neighbors becoming an unwanted nuisance. Likewise, individuals are required to embrace fair peacefulness during their recreational hours without any noise pollution problem. It is recognized that some of them are quite sensitive to noise, whose rights should therefore be acknowledged and protected.