NOISE POLLUTION

• Noise pollution is an unwanted or excessive sound that can have deleterious effects on human health and environmental
quality
• noise pollution is one of the major environmental concerns. According to Robert Koch a Nobel prize winner German
bacteriologist "A day will come man will have to fight merciless noise as the worst enemy of health.“ The problem of
noise pollution has already crossed the danger point and noise like smog, is threatening as a slow agent of death. It is hard
to find, even in rural areas, any place where the only sound are those produced by nature.
• Major sources are: vehicular traffic, industries, household instruments, loudspeakers, construction, airplane, rails, etc.
The term "noise pollution" has not been defined in the Central Legislative Acts anywhere. But Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 recognizes noise as an "environmental pollution" and empowers the Central Government to frame the rules
prescribing the maximum permissible limits for noise in different areas. In 1987, amendment to the Air (Prevention
And Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 expanded the definition of "air pollution" to include noise.
• Section 2 (a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 includes noise in the definition of ‘air pollutant’.

Section 2(a) air pollution means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance including noise present in the atmosphere such
concentration as may be or tent to injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or property or
environment.
• Noise is a type of atmospheric pollution in the form of waves. It is a shadowy public
enemy. It has increased in the modern age of industrialization and technological
advancement. Many Industrial psychologists and environmentalists have defined the term
noise. According to Blum, noise acts as a distracter and, therefore, it interferes with the
efficiency of people. J. Tiffin states that noise is a sound which is disagreeable to the
individual and which disturb the normal activities of an individual. Harrell defines noise
as 'an unwanted sound which increases fatigue & under some industrial conditions it
causes deafness'.
• Noise pollution causes harmful effects, such as difficulty in concentrating, increase in
blood pressure, anger issues, deafness, irritability, effects on animals as well
• A decibel is the standard for the measurement of noise. The zero on a decibel scale is at
the threshold of hearing, the lowest sound pressure that can be heard, on the scale is, 20
db is whisper, 40 db the noise in a quiet office . 60 db is normal conversation, 80 db is the
level at which sound becomes physically painful.90 db noise from waterfalls such as
Niagra falls. 100-110 db is jet aircrafts, 150 db is jet while taking off, 180 db and above,
space launch vehicle.
 Effects of noise pollution
• Auditory effects-
- temporary hearing loss
- permanent hearing loss
• Non-Auditory Effects-
-annoyance
-loss of efficiency
-Disturbance in sleep
-Effect on cardiovascular system
-Effects on nervous system
-irritability
 CONTROL MEASURES

• NON-LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
• Designing silencing devices in aircrafts, jet, scooters, bikes etc
• Trees such as Neem and Ashoka absorb sound vibrations, so
plantation of these trees nearby roads help in mitigating noise
pollution
• Sound absorbing materials should be used in industries etc
• Construction of sound-proof buildings
• General awareness should be developed
 CONTROL MEASURES
• There was no legislative measure adopted for controlling noise pollution before year 2000.
In 2000, Noise Pollution ( Regulation and control ) rules 2000 was framed by Central
Government. Before 2000, noise pollution was tackled under various other laws. Such as-
• Noise Pollution Control under the Indian Penal Code (1860)
• Noise is considered as public nuisance under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code and
thus, there is a criminal liability of a person relating to his illegal omission resulting in
common injury, danger or annoyance to the people in general. The acts of public nuisance
have been made punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code which provides
that whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by the Code
shall be punished with the fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
• Chapter XIV of India Penal Code deals with offences relating to the public health, safety,
convenience, decency, and morals under section 268, 269, 270, 278, 279, 280, 287, 288,
290, 291, and 294. Sections 188, 295, 296, 337, 399, 441, 425, 426, 503, noise pollution
can be penalized with the help of above sections.
• Case: Kirori Mal Bishamber Dayal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 P H 11 (Dictated in
class)
• The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. P. C) can also be invoked to
prevent the pollution of almost all kinds, including noise pollution. Under S.133 and
S.144 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Executive Magistrates have been authorized to
issue certain conditional orders.
• This section empowers the Magistrate, on police report or on other information, to
remove, prohibit or regulate any public nuisance or any trade or occupation,
injurious to health or physical comfort of the community as noise sometimes
amount to public nuisance and also may cause physical discomfort to the people, its
control will lie within the ambit of the aforesaid sections of the Code.
• Section 144 of CrPC is used in urgent cases of nuisance, can be used to prevent any
annoyance or injury to any person or danger to human life, health or safety or
disturbance of public tranquility, riots, affray.
• Cases: Dwarka Prasad v. B.K Roy AIR 1950 Cal. 349( dictated in class)
• Krishan Gopal v. State of M.P 1986 CrL.J 396( dictated in class)
• Aircraft Act, 1934- it has been suggested that aerodromes be constructed away from residential areas of a city
in order to protect residents from noise created by frequent take-off and landing.
• The Factories Act, 1948- Third Schedule contains the list of noticeable diseases like hearing loss caused by
noise. Entry 22 of the Sch. Deals with ‘noise induced hearing loss’ and compensation to be paid.
• The Police Act, 1861 it covers the problems of noise arising from music, which is one of the aspects of noise
pollution. Under the provisions of this Act Superintendents of Police are authorized to regulate the extent of
which music may be used in streets on the occasions of festivals and ceremonies.
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981- Section 16 (2)(h) provides for the central pollution
control board to lay down standards for noise.
• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986- Entry 89 of
schedule-1 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986; provides for the noise standards for fire crackers and it
prohibits the manufacture, sale or use of fire-crackers generating noise level exceeding 125 db or 145 db at 4
meters distance from the point of bursting.
• Motor vehicle Act, 1988- section 110 to make rules for regulating construction, equipment and maintenance of
motor vehicles and Central Motor Vehicles rules,1989 on use of horns-
• case: Nayan Bihari Das v. State of Orissa AIR 1998 Ori 39. (dictated in class)
 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control)
Rules, 2000
• Came into being on 14th July 2000

• The Central Government in exercise of the powers under section 3(2)(ii) , section 6(1) and section 6 (2) (b) and section 25
of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment Protection rules, 1986 enacted the Noise
pollution ( Regulation and Control ) Rules, 2000
Sec 3. Power of Central Government to take measures to protect and improve environment.
2. In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), such measures may include
measures with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:
(ii)planning and execution of a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental
pollution;
Sec 6. Rules to regulate environmental pollution.
(1)The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules in respect of all or any of the matters
referred to in section 3.
(2)In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:
(b) the maximum allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants (including noise) for different areas;
Sec 25. Power to make rules.
RULE 5. Prohibitions and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying on processes and operations in different
areas
 Free legal Aid cell v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2001 Delhi 455

• The Delhi High Court directed that the authority empowered to take
action under the said rules should give wide publicity to the rules by
inserting appropriate advertisements in at least six national daily
newspapers. The Court further directed that it would be the
responsibility of the area S.D.Ms to see that the rules are strictly
adhered to in letter and spirit.

• DIFFICULTY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL

• The Constitution obligates ‘state’ and the ‘citizens’ to protect and improve the
environment .
• Art 48-A- Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of
forests and wild life The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country
• Art 51 A-g- to protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
• Art 21
• Art 19 (1) (a)
• Art 25
• In State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla, AIR 1959 S.C 544, a unique question came up before the Supreme Court
whether the State Legislation has right to prevent and control noise pollution and make it punishable? Do such
restrictions or State enactments amount to violation of the freedom of speech for prevention and control of
noises? The Supreme Court was of the opinion that this freedom is not absolute. It is subjected to the restrictions
under Article 19(2). This clause (2) of Article 19 provides certain reasonable restrictions which can be in the
freedom of speech and expression. Thus, if any law, pre-constitutional or post-constitutional, imposes reasonable
restrictions in the interest of public order, it is constitutional. In this case, the Ajmer (Sound Amplifier Control)
act, 1952 was challenged as violative of freedom of speech and expression and that the State Government
had no power under the Constitution to enact such laws.
• The Supreme Court declared that the said act is not unconstitutional as it is a reasonable restriction in the interest
of public order and the state is also empowered to enact such laws. To make things more clear it was observed by
the court that the state can make laws in the exercise of its power under Entry 8, “Public Health and Sanitation
of List II provided under Seventh Schedule”. Thus, the states “have the right to control loud noises when
the rights of such user, in disregard to the comfort and obligations to others, emerges as manifest nuisance
to them”. Thus, laws to control loud noises and music enacted by various states are within the permissible limits
of the Constitution and are a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. The court made it
clear that persons are free to make noise but not to transgress the right of others to live peacefully.
• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all
persons. It is well settled by repeated pronouncements of this Court as also
the High Courts that right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere
survival or existence. It guarantees a right of persons to live with human
dignity.
• Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)(a) pleading
freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of
speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not
absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by
amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While
one has a right to speech and expression , others have a right to listen or
decline to listen.
• Two decisions in this regard delivered by High Courts have been brought
to our notice wherein the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise
pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. Free legal Aid cell v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2001 Delhi 455 and
P.A. Jacob vs The Superintendent Of Police, Kottayam AIR 1993 Ker 1
 P.A. Jacob vs The Superintendent Of Police, Kottayam AIR 1993 Ker 1
• Claiming a fundamental right to use a loud speaker at public meetings to voice his
views, petitioner seeks to restrain respondents from interfering with the use of a loud
speaker by him.
• petitioner sought permission to use loud speakers and sound amplifiers to hold public
meeting where he proposed to denounce the practice of an orthodox Christian sect which
barred its members from marrying outside their denomination. The Sub-inspector
withdrew the permission apprehending that petitioners view may cause public disorder.
The petitioner approached the Kerala High Court that action of respondent is violative of
Art 19(1)(a).
• The Court held that this right doesn’t include the right to use loudspeakers or sound
amplifiers. This right is not absolute right and can be restricted under art 19(2). Ones
right of freedom cannot curtail others right of freedom of silence.
• Free legal Aid cell v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2001 Delhi 455
• Main grievance in this petition is that as a result of display of fire works and use thereof
during festivals and marriages, physical and mental hazard is suffered by adults as well
as children.
• The Court allowed the petition considering the effect of noise on health.
In Burrabazar fireworks Association v. Commissioner of police, Calcutta,
AIR 1998 Cal. 121 it has been held “Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of
India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business
which creates pollution or which takes away communities safety, health
and peace. People cannot be made a captive listener to hear the tremendous
sounds caused by bursting out noisy fireworks. It may give pleasure to one
or two persons who burst it but others have to be a captive listener whose
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and other provisions
of the Constitution are taken away, suspended and made meaningless.
Under article 19 (1)(a) read with Article 21 of the constitution of India, the
citizens have a right of decent environment and they have a right to live
peacefully, right to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which are all
necessary under Article 21 of the Constitution
 Dhannalal And Anr. v. Thakur Chittarsingh Mehtapsingh ,AIR 1959
M.P 250

• This is defendants' second appeal from the decree passed by the Additional District Judge,
affirming the decree by the Civil Judge granting a perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from running a flour-mill close to the house of the plaintiff-respondent in
Manorama Ward of Bina town, M.P
• Plaintiff-respondent has his house at a distance of 8 or 9 feet from the flour-mill. The
allegation of the plaintiff was that the working of the flour-mill caused great trouble to the
occupants of the house and the smoke, vibrations and the noise of the mill interfered with
their physical comforts and is actionable as nuisance.
• Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the working of the defendants flour-
mill in that locality makes such a great noise generally from 2 P.M. to 9 P.M. and some-days
from 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. (with a short break) that during that time it is difficult for the
occupants of the plaintiff's house to hear their own conversation, and undoubtedly it
interferes with their physical comforts. The Courts, therefore, granted the injunction solely
on the basis of abnormal or unreasonable noise produced by the flour-mill.
 Church Of God (Full Gospel) In India ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn., (2000) 7
SCC 282
• Issue: questions involved raised is whether a particular community or sect of that community can claim right to add to
noise pollution on the ground of religion?
• Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or
tranquility of neighbourhood should be permitted? Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed
by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums.
• The appellant is the Church of God (Full Gospel) located at K.K.R. Nagar, Madhavaram High Road, Chennai. It has a
prayer hall for the Pentecostal Christians and is provided with musical instruments such as drum set, triple gango, guitar
etc. Respondent No.1-KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association made a complaint to the Tamil nadu Pollution Control
Board stating therein that prayers in the Church were recited by using loudspeakers, drums and other sound producing
instruments which caused noise pollution thereby disturbing and causing nuisance to the normal day life of the residents
of the said colony.
• The defendants pleaded that they have a right to freely practice, profess and propagate religion under Article 25 of the
Constitution of India, 1950. However, court ordered that this right can be reasonably restricted as its not absolute right. It
is subject to public order, morality , health and part III of the Constitution of India.
• Essential right is to practice religion, not to use excessive high volume loudspeakers or noise ,no religion prescribes or
preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums.
• Other Case Laws
• The Calcutta High Court has held in the case of Moulana Mufti Syed Mohammed Noorur Rehman
Barkati v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 Ker 15: “it cannot be said that for giving Azaans the applicants
should be allowed to use microphones in the early hours of the day and that is before 6 o’clock in the
morning. Azaan is definitely an integral and essential part of the Muslim religion, but use of microphones is
certainly not an integral part of Azaan.” The Court held that this restriction is not violative of Article 25 of
Constitution of India.
• Sayeed Maqsood Ali v. State of M.P AIR 2001 M.P 220( dictated in class)
• Right to sleep peacefully is a fundamental right-
• The Apex Court dealt with the issue of privacy as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held that
the right to sleep has always been treated to be fundamental. The Apex Court held thus: “ Sleep is essential for
a human being to maintain the delicate balance of health necessary for its very existence and survival. Sleep
is, therefore, a fundamental requirement without which the existence of life would be in peril. To disturb
sleep, therefore, would amount to torture, which is now accepted as a violation of human right.”
• Afzal Ansari v. state of U.P, 2020, Allahabad High Court, held that use of loudspeakers for azaan not
allowed
 In Re: Noise Pollution (v) (2005) 5 SCC 733

• The Civil Petition was filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession moving the Court pro bono publico.
• The immediate provocation for filing the petition was that a 13 year old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of January 3,
1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker in the neighbourhood. The victim girl, later
in the evening, set herself ablaze and died of 100% burn injuries. The petition complains of noise created by the use of firecrackers and the
use of the loudspeakers being used in religious performances or singing bhajans and the like in busy commercial localities on the days of
weekly offs. Best quality hi-fi audio systems are used. Open space, meant for use by the schools in the locality, is let out for use in marriage
functions and parties wherein merry making goes on with hi-fi amplifiers and loudspeakers without any regard to timings. Modern residents
of the locality organize terrace parties for socializing and use high capacity stereo systems in abundance. These are a few instances of noise
pollution and the noise polluters have no regard for the inconvenience and discomfort of the people in the vicinity.
• The court granted the petition and made following directions:
• The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two categories- (i) Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii) Colour/light emitting
firecrackers.
• There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as
to time on bursting of colour/light emitting firecrackers.
• Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker mention details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as laid
down by DOE.
• Vehicular Noise No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential area except in exceptional
circumstances.
• There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text-
books which teach civic sense to the children and youth at the initial/early level of education. Special talks and lectures be organised in the
schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children and younger generation in preventing it.