_20241114103329_original_image_10.webp)
In a step towards curbing the menace of noise pollution, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated and fortified the guidelines laid down in Reet Mohinder Singh Virk v. State of Punjab and Ors. and further made the process of resolution of complaints time bound in light of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P.
In the background, the Petitioners, grossly aggrieved by the indiscriminate use of the loudspeaker at excessive and intolerable volume by a Gurudwara in the residential area, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. The grievance of the Petitioners was attributed to the detriment that the ‘noise’ from the loudspeaker is causing to the health of the Petitioners as well as the other people living in the vicinity.
During the proceedings, it was argued by Mr. Abhinav Sood, counsel for the Petitioners, that the issue of environmental damage is a wider issue and is affecting the health and lives of the people living in the vicinity is a serious issue and in spite of multiple representations and legal notices to the authorities, they have chosen to remain oblivious and inert.
It was argued that concrete measures need to be adopted and enforced to ensure that the right of the citizens to live in a healthy environment is protected and that the aggrieved must not be constrained to knock the doors of the court for any relief.
After careful consideration, a bench comprising of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetrapal observed that the grievance of the noise pollution is a continuous one and will have to be monitored from a micro to macro level by the concerned authorities including the executive authorities, District Magistrate and superintendent of police.
The bench further reiterated the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Reet Mohinder Singh Virk v. State of Punjab and Ors. which are reproduced as hereunder:
“i) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including religious bodies in Temples, Mosques and Gurudwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 10dB(A) peripheral noise level.
ii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that the loudspeaker, public address system, musical instrument and sound amplifier are not played during night time except in auditoria, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls as per norms laid down under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
iii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that loud speakers or public address systems are not used between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., except between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding 15 days in all during a calendar year, that too, the noise level shall not exceed 10dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area. The peripheral noise level of a privately owned sound system or a sound producing instrument shall not, at the boundary of the private place, exceed by more than 5dB (A). The authority concerned shall keep on visiting and monitoring at the public places, private places, auditoriums, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls, temples, mosques and Gurudwaras to ensure due compliance of the Rules.
iv) We direct all the Senior Superintendents of Police/ Superintendents of Police in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh to ensure that no horn shall be blown in silence zone or during the night time between 10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. in residential areas except during public emergency. No sound emitting construction equipments shall be used or operated during the night time between 10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. in residential areas or silence zone. m. The pressure horns are banned throughout the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh. The violators of the Rules be penalized under the Rule 6 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
v) All the Senior Superintendents of Police/ Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that motorcycles throughout the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are duly fitted with silencers to avoid noise pollution and menace.
vi) No person, throughout the States of Punjab, Hayana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, shall carry any fire-arm to a fair, religious procession/ marriage procession or other public assemblage or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution.
vii) The Licensing Authorities are also directed to ensure that no licence is issued to any person, who has not completed the age of 21 years.
viii) No licence shall be issued to a person who has been sentenced on conviction of any offence involving violence or moral turpitude to imprisonment for [any term] at any time during a period of five years.
ix) No licence shall be issued to a person who has been ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the [code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, during the term of the bond.
x) The Director General of Police in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, are directed to ensure that no songs are played glorifying the liquor, wine, drugs and violence in any song even in live shows.
xi) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are also directed that no child below the age of 12 years is permitted to enter cinema halls/ multiplexes, where “A” certificate films are screened. xii) The District Administration is directed to ensure that nude posters, semi-nude posters, obscene posters should not be fixed/ displayed in any district near the educational institutions in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh.
xiii) The Deputy Commissioners in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, are directed to ensure that no loudspeakers are permitted 15 days before the annual examinations and during the course of examinations.
xiv) The recommendations made by the Committee constituted by this Court are ordered to be implemented in letter and spirit for proper enforcement of law.
xv) The District Magistrates/ Senior Superintendents of Police/ Superintendents of Police of each district shall be personally responsible to ensure due compliance of the directions issued hereinabove.”
Consequently, the Court also observed that the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police would be held personally liable for all such violations.
Furthermore, the bench granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the jurisdictional police station and lodge an FIR in the event of any violation of the above laid down guidelines since noise pollution, being a cognizable offence, is a part of air pollution and is punishable under the penal provisions of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981. It was also directed by the Ld. Bench that If the police fails to perform its statutory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 then the aggrieved person is free to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C (Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Further, in a first, the Hon’ble Bench, relying on the directions passed by the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P., made the process of resolution of complaints related to noise pollution time bound.
“Conclusion/Directions:
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the
Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”
Case title: Abhilaksh Sachdev and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. being CWP-6280-2024
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
