Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association
Supreme Court of India, 30 August 2000, 2 judges
No religion prescribes prayer through loudspeakers or drums that disturb others; the High Court's direction to control noise from a church under the noise pollution rules was upheld and the church's appeal dismissed.
Facts
The appellant church in K.K.R. Nagar, Chennai, had a prayer hall for Pentecostal Christians with musical instruments such as a drum set and guitar. The respondent welfare association complained to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the police that prayers were recited using loudspeakers, drums and other instruments, causing noise pollution and nuisance to residents. The Board asked the police to act, though its survey report attributed the noise to vehicles on the main road. The association then filed Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998 in the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge directed the police to follow the guidelines laid down in Appa Rao's case and bring the noise to permitted levels, including by making the church keep its speakers lower. The church appealed, relying on Articles 25 and 26.
Questions before the Court
- Can a religious community claim a right to add to noise pollution, by loudspeakers or drums, on the ground of religion?
- Were the High Court's directions to control the noise lawful?
What the Court held
- No religion prescribes that prayers be performed by disturbing the peace of others or through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. In a civilised society, activities in the name of religion that disturb old or infirm persons, students, children or others cannot be permitted.
- The rights under Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, morality and health and need not be dealt with in detail; any such practice must not adversely affect the rights of others, including the right not to be disturbed.
- The High Court's directions followed the Appa Rao guidelines and conformed to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and were not illegal or erroneous.
- That noise in an area already exceeds the limits because of urbanisation is no ground to let others add to it; rules restricting loudspeakers, including the Noise Pollution Rules, must be enforced. The appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that a claim of religious practice does not permit noise that disturbs neighbours, and it reads the rights under Articles 25 and 26 as subject to the rights of others. It sets out the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, notes the lack of awareness and enforcement of them, and approves the High Court's direction that they be implemented.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted.”
“In the present case, the contention with regard to the rights under Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution which are subject to public order, morality and health are not required to be dealt with in detail mainly because as stated earlier no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including that of being not disturbed in their activities.”
“because of urbanization or industrialization the noise pollution may in some area of a city/town might be exceeding permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 25, Constitution
- Article 26, Constitution
- Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, Rules 3 to 8
Case and bench
- Parties
- Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association
- Case
- Not printed in the file (civil appeal by special leave from the Madras High Court's order dated 19.4.1999 in Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998)
- Decided
- 30 August 2000
- Bench
- M B Shah, S.N. Phukan
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by M.B. Shah, J.