Case Analysis: Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, (2000) | Noise Pollution Case

The 'Case Analysis: Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association' highlights the Supreme Court's decision, which underscores the importance of an individual's right to a serene and noise-free environment, and it stresses that religious practices should be carried out in a manner that respects this right without causing any disturbance.

Case Title: Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: (2000) 7 SCC 282

Bench: Justice M.B. Shah and Justice S.N. Phukan

Judgment: 30th August, 2000

Introduction

The case deals with an important issue of noise pollution especially related to religious activities. Is it appropriate to use speakers and audio amplifiers to disrupt the quiet and serenity of the surrounding area? Without any doubt, no religion instructs or supports the idea that prayers should be made with the intent to disturb the peace of others with the use of voice amplifiers or drums. For religious reasons, a socialized society cannot tolerate activities that frighten the elderly or frail, students or children sleeping in the early morning or throughout the day, or individuals engaging in diverse types of exercise. It should not be forgotten that young children in the vicinity are also entitled to take full advantage of their shared right to sleep in a peaceful environment. An understudy who is preparing for his evaluation is eligible to concentrate on his research without needless annoyance from the surroundings. In essence, the elderly and ill are entitled to reasonable silence during their free time without the disturbance of noise.

Facts

1. The Church of God (Full gospel) in India, also known as the “Church,” served as a place of prayer for Pentecostal Christians, a particular branch of Christianity.

2. It used drums, guitars and other similar musical instruments to recite prayers.

3. The Loudspeakers were also utilized for the recitation of their prayers.

4. The monastery was situated in Chennai’s K.K.R. Nagar neighbourhood with Madhavram High Road.

5. The K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association was a welfare organization in this area.

6. This charity group complained to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, claiming that the church was bothering the locals by producing noise pollution.

7. Both the Officer in Charge of Police and the Superintendent of Police received a complaint.

8. In light of the complaint the domain’s ambient sound levels were tested by the board’s Acting Chief Environmental Engineer.

9. The test results demonstrated that the noise pollution on Madhavram High Roads was caused by traffic.

10. Subsequently, the welfare association petitioned the High Court for a criminal order directing the Superintendent of Police as well as the Officer in Charge of Police to take appropriate action.

11. The Court considered additional scientific papers as well as one of its previous rulings (Appa Rao, M.S. v. Govt. Of TN & anr.), which established rules for mitigating noise pollution. (These rules covered restrictions on using the loudspeakers, among other things.

12. The welfare society was justified in its requests, the High Court said. The Jt. Chief Environmental Engineer’s report made no more recommendations beyond pointing out that the Church contributed to the already-existing annoyance of vehicle noise pollution rather than being the only source of it.

13. The Court ordered the SP and the Inspector to perform the appropriate action to reduce noise pollution by pursuing violations against vehicles that generated noise and lowering the volume of the institution speakers.

Important Provisions:

Article 25 of Indian Constitution

Subject to both provisions of this Part, public order, morality, and health, everyone has an equal right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to openly profess, practice, and spread religion.

Absolutely nothing in this article will interfere with the functioning of any law already in place or stop the State from passing legislation governing or restricting any financial, political, commercial, or secular activity that might be connected to religious practice.

Issue Raised:

1. Whether it is possible for a specific group or sect in a nation with many different religions and groups to assert the right to increase noise pollution based on religious beliefs.
2. Would it be legal to use mics and amplifiers to recite prayers or bang the drums to breach the quietness or harmony of the neighbourhood?
3. Whether there is a violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 to adhere to and proclaim Christianity.
4. Whether the HC’s referenced judgment gives the appropriate governing bodies the right to impede on devotion to religion.

Arguments from Both the Sides:

Petitioner

According to the two SPCB research reports, vehicle traffic is to blame for the noise pollution in the surrounding region. The right of authorities to meddle in a community’s religious customs does not exist (M.S. Appa Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others). There is a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution to freedom of conscience, freedom of occupation, practice, and promotion of religion, as well as the freedom to govern religious affairs.

Respondent

The appellant purposefully infused the action’s cause with religious overtones. The High Court’s decision only aims to lessen noise pollution in that particular location. A High Court may, by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, make an order to uphold and safeguard every fundamental right of a citizen. Om Birangana Religious Society v. State and Others in the context of references proves to be useful.

Judgment

The Court determined that there are no unalienable rights in an ordered society. The exercise of one’s rights must coincide with the exercise of others’ rights. When it is impossible to create a voluntary concord through an open exchange of social forces, the state must intervene to correct the conflicting interests. The Court also determined that a particular fundamental right wouldn’t be possible in a vacuum within a sealed enclosure.

An individual’s fundamental right may be obtained to coexist peacefully with the exercising of another fundamental right by others, as well as with the State’s reasonable and lawful use of authority in the context of the Directive Principles and the benefit of society as a whole.

The arguments from the applicant were dismissed because the learned Judge’s instruction to the authorities was to merely adhere to the rules established in the Appa Rao case, which was decided by the same High Court’s Division Bench based on the Madras City Police Act of 1888 and the Madras Towns Nuisance Act of 1889. It also complies with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which were created by the Central Government by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Regulation and Control of Noise Pollution (Rule 3), 2000.

Furthermore, it should be noted that due to increasing urbanization and industrial activity, pollution may exceed the enormous acceptable ranges outlined in the standards in some areas of a city or town. However, this does not justify permitting others to continuously increase pollution levels through the banging of drums, the use of voice boosters, speaker systems, or other similar musical instruments.

As a result, it was necessary to implement regulations imposing reasonable restrictions in addition to the guidelines for the use of voice amplifiers and loudspeakers outlined in the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889, as well as the Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The voters and the Execution Authorities have no idea of the principles or their responsibility to consistently follow them, even if the principles were clear. Even though there are many noise-polluting operations, the same laws or the guiding principles outlined in several State Police Acts don’t seem to be followed, for whatever reason. Therefore, the court’s directive to impose constraint is just.

Impact

• The judicial accordance has been amazing and commendable, but the actual situation is still the same. Only human movement can change this, thus it is time for people to rise to the occasion.
• These are some actions that have the potential to significantly aid in resolving the noise pollution issue in connection to religion:
• Without the general public’s acceptance of the law, no police agency can successfully enforce any portion of it or a court order. People take to the streets if they believe that it is against them. Any legislative or political mandate’s effectiveness depends on how widely its principles are accepted.
• Court orders must be followed, and to ascertain their outcomes, several meetings should be arranged with organizations, Ganpati mandaps, and other governmental religious groups.
• When a not publicly traded sound system is utilized along the edge of a private location, its peripheral noise level cannot be more than 5 db(A) above the average air quality level for that area.
• The State government shall make provision for the seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipment as are found to be creating noise beyond the permissible limits.
• The States must offer for the confiscation and seizure of amplifiers as well as loudspeaker systems and any other equipment that is shown to be producing noise that exceeds permitted levels.
• N.G.O.s can also have a significant impact by raising awareness and lending support to states.
• It is necessary to raise public awareness of the dangerous consequences of noise pollution. The State needs to be involved in this process actively. It is necessary to conduct special public education initiatives ahead of festivals, events, and ceremonies where fireworks are likely to be utilized.

Conclusion

The court ruled in this case that the right to life cannot be superseded by the freedom of speech and expression. Because prolonged noise exposure will hurt both the environment and human health, noise pollution legislation must be implemented properly.

No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. The apex court emphasized:

it cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are in any manner illegal or erroneous.

The apex court's guidelines paved the way for the protection of the environment and human health.

Click Here to read the entire case

Important Links