- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Noise Pollution (Vi), In Re
Factual and Procedural Background
The Central Government amended the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 by inserting sub-rule (3) into Rule 5 via S.O. 1088(E) dated 11-10-2002. This sub-rule empowers State Governments to permit the use of loudspeakers between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight for up to fifteen festive days each calendar year.
The amendment’s constitutional validity was challenged before the High Court of Kerala in OP No. 38066 of 2003. A Division Bench upheld the provision on 14-03-2003. The writ petitioners sought further relief in the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005, which was heard with WP (C) No. 72 of 1998 and decided on 18-07-2005 in Noise Pollution (V), In re, (2005) 5 SCC 733. According to the present applicants, that judgment neither overturned the Kerala decision nor expressly addressed the validity of sub-rule (3), leading to enforcement uncertainties for State Governments.
Multiple interlocutory applications were thereafter filed. In the present order, the Supreme Court confines itself to the limited grievance regarding sub-rule (3) and directs that Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005 be reopened for that purpose.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005 should be reopened to examine the constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Rules as upheld by the Kerala High Court.
- Whether Rule 5, including sub-rule (3), should remain operational pending such reconsideration.
- Whether interlocutory applications seeking relaxation of night-time restrictions on bursting fire-crackers and other festival-related activities require the Court’s reconsideration.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants’ Arguments
- The 18-07-2005 Supreme Court judgment did not specifically overrule the Kerala High Court’s decision or address the constitutionality of sub-rule (3).
- Because of this perceived omission, State Governments are uncertain about exercising the discretion granted by sub-rule (3).
Submissions by Amicus Curiae
- Drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 150 of the 18-07-2005 judgment, which declined to relax night-time restrictions for festivals such as Diwali.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| OP No. 38066 of 2003, High Court of Kerala (14-03-2003) | Upheld the constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. | The correctness of this judgment is the specific subject of the reopened hearing. |
| Noise Pollution (V), In re, (2005) 5 SCC 733 | Comprehensive directions on noise pollution; did not expressly rule on sub-rule (3). | Cited to demonstrate the alleged gap in addressing the validity of sub-rule (3), prompting the present order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found prima facie merit in the submission that its earlier judgment did not directly evaluate the Kerala High Court’s reasoning upholding sub-rule (3). Observing that the issue warranted explicit adjudication, the Bench decided to reopen Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005, limiting the rehearing strictly to the validity of the impugned sub-rule. All other questions resolved in the 18-07-2005 judgment remain concluded. The Court further held that, until it renders a fresh decision, Rule 5—including sub-rule (3)—shall continue to operate.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Hearing in Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005 is reopened exclusively to examine the Kerala High Court’s decision on sub-rule (3); all interlocutory applications are marked as disposed of; Rule 5 of the Noise Rules remains in force until further orders.
Implications: The order reinstates the operative effect of Rule 5, providing immediate clarity for State Governments on enforcement powers while signalling that the constitutional question concerning sub-rule (3) is still open. No broader precedent is set at this stage; the forthcoming rehearing will determine the final position.
Order
1. Heard.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for all the applicants in several applications, we are inclined to entertain a very limited grievance and that is made clear hereunder.
3. Our attention is invited to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Noise Rules” for short) framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 6 and Section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
4. Vide S.O 1088(E) dated 11-10-2002 sub-rule 3 was inserted by the Central Government in Rule 5 of the Noise Rules. The text of Rule 5, as amended on 11-10-2002 reads as under:
“5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/public address system.—(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority.
(2) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m to 6.00 a.m) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State Government may, subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loudspeakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10.00 p.m to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year.”
5. The constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) abovesaid was put in issue by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala registered as OP No. 38066 of 2003 disposed of on 14-3-2003. The Division Bench of the High Court turned down the challenge and upheld the constitutional validity of the said sub-rule (3).
6. The writ petitioners before the Kerala High Court filed an appeal by special leave before this Court registered as CA No. 3735 of 2005 which was dealt with by this Court along with WP (C) No. 72 of 1998 and decided vide its judgment dated 18-7-2005 in Noise Pollution (V), In re (2005) 5 SCC 733. It is contended that in the judgment this Court has not specifically upset the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court and has also not even otherwise expressed and recorded any specific opinion on the constitutional validity or otherwise of sub-rule (3) abovesaid. It is submitted that Rule 5, as amended, and as reproduced hereinabove continues to remain in operation but the State Governments are feeling difficulty in enforcing the Rule and also exercising the power conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Rules in view of the judgment of this Court.
7. Prima facie, we find merit in the submission so made. We feel that the Court should have specifically dealt with the plea as to the validity of sub-rule (3) which was dealt with by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and expressed its opinion thereon. To this limited extent the case needs to be reopened for hearing and heard afresh.
8. Hearing in CA No. 3735 of 2005 is reopened, limited to the extent of examining the correctness or otherwise of the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court impugned therein.
9. List the matter for hearing in that regard on 24-10-2005. The Registry may inform the counsel for the appellant-writ petitioners in that appeal.
10. Until further orders Rule 5 of the Noise Rules, as reproduced hereinabove, shall continue to remain in operation.
11. So far as other applications are concerned, Mr Jitendra Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing as amicus curiae in the writ petition has invited our attention to para 150 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder:
“150. Several interlocutory applications have been filed in this Court, wherein it was pleaded that restriction on bursting of firecrackers in the night should be removed during the Diwali festival. Similar relaxation was demanded for other festivals. These applications highlighted practices prevalent in some of the western countries wherein such relaxation is allowed. We do not think that we will be justified in granting any such relaxation. Indian society is pluralistic. People of this great country belong to different castes and communities, have belief in different religions and customs and celebrate different festivals. We are tolerant of each other. There is unity in diversity. If relaxation is allowed to one there will be no justification for not permitting relaxation to others and if we do so the relaxation will become the rule. It will be difficult to enforce the restriction.”
We are not inclined to reopen the hearing insofar as the above aspect of the case is concerned. All the issues covered by the judgment dated 18-7-2005 (2005) 5 SCC 733 excepting the one relating to CA No. 3735 of 2005 stand concluded.
12. All the IAs be treated as disposed of.
Alert