Noise pollution : Silence is one of the human rights as noise is injurious to human health : Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

The question involved in the appeal was as under
: Whether musical functions in an open theatre being Rang Bhavan should be
allowed to be carried on or not despite the fact that it is situated within
100 meters of an educational institution and a hospital ?

Rang Bhavan is an institution owned and run by
the State of Maharashtra. It is the only open theatre in the city of Mumbai.
It is let out on hire for the purpose of holding music and cultural programmes.
It charges a meagre amount for allowing private parties to hold functions. It
has a sitting capacity of 4000 persons. It is stated that the world’s greatest
artists, both Western and Indian, have performed therein. Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak
Oke & Ors. filed a public interest litigation bearing PIL No. 2053 of 2003 for
a direction to the State to curb noise pollution in general in the city of
Mumbai and particularly during the festive season of Navratri and Ganesh Utsav.
An order was passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, directing
that no loudspeaker permission be granted in respect of ‘Silence Zone’ as
defined and discussed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules,
2000, as amended from time to time.

While the said order was operating, the appellant
made an application to book Rang Bhavan from 13th to 15th August, 2004 in
regard to performance of Western Cultural Music. The said application was
rejected by the State by an order dated 2-6-2004.

The Directorate of Cultural Affairs in a letter
dated 9-7-2004 addressed to the Secretary, Power Productions, also informed
that in accordance with the High Court’s order no. 2503, dated 25-9-2003,
Rangbhavan, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai, the open-air theatre comes under the silence
zone and hence the use of loudspeakers has been banned.

Contending that the said Rang Bhavan had been
lying closed for the past few years and the directions issued by the High
Court are not in consonance with the rules governing noise pollution framed by
the State of Maharashtra, a writ petition was filed by the appellant herein.
The purported public interest litigation was filed by the appellant herein to
seek an exception to the earlier order of the Bombay High Court.

The Court observed that the High Court in the
earlier public interest litigation, being writ petition No. 2053 of 2003,
admittedly passed an order of injunction. If the said order was required to be
modified or clarified and/or relaxation was to be prayed for and granted in
regard to Rang Bhavan, the appellant should have filed an application in the
said proceeding. An independent public interest litigation to obtain a relief
which would be contrary to and inconsistent with the order of injunction
passed by the Court was not maintainable. Inter alia, the doctrine of
comity or amity demands the same.

Silence Zone is an area comprising not less than
100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious
places or any other area which is declared as such by the competent authority.

Thus contention of the appellant that the State
Government has not declared the said zone was an irrelevant point. The High
Court, while passing its interim order dated 25-9-2003, did not state that
silence zone was required to be declared, but passed the order of restraint in
respect of silence zone, as ‘defined and discussed in the Rules’. The parties
thereto and particularly the State of Maharashtra had understood the said
order in that light.

Interference by the Court in respect of noise
pollution is premised on the basis that a citizen has certain rights being
‘necessity of silence’, ‘necessity of sleep’, ‘process during sleep’ and
‘rest’, which are biological necessities and essential for health. Silence is
considered to be golden. It is considered to be one of the human rights as
noise is injurious to human health which is required to be preserved at any
cost.

As there was no merit in this appeal the petition
was dismissed.

[Farhd K. Wadia v. UOI & Others, Civil
Appeal No. 7131 of 2008 {Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 22939 of 2004), dated
5-12-2008 Supreme Court}

(source : itatonline.org) 2009 (1) scale
293]