Balancing Act: The Bombay High Court on Noise Pollution and Religious Practices

Synopsis

This case highlights the Bombay High Court’s stance on regulating noise pollution from loudspeakers, balancing religious freedom with public welfare. The court ruled that using loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice under Article 25 and must adhere to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The judgment emphasized the need for reasonable restrictions to protect public health and maintain social harmony.

1. Central Issue of the Case

The case revolved around residents of Nehru Nagar challenging the use of loudspeakers by mosques and madrasas beyond permissible decibel levels and hours. They claimed this practice violated noise pollution norms and disturbed public peace.

2. Court's Decision on Loudspeakers as a Religious Practice

The Bombay High Court held that using loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice. Therefore, it is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion subject to public health, order, and morality.

3. Legal Provisions Cited for Regulation

The court cited the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which limit sound levels to 55 decibels in residential areas during the day and 45 decibels at night. Loudspeakers are prohibited during specified hours to protect public health.

4. Directions Given to Authorities

The court directed the police and government to:

• Enforce the graded penalty system for violations.
• Ensure the use of decibel-measuring devices to check compliance.
• Warn violators and, in cases of repeated offenses, seize loudspeakers and revoke permissions.

5. Relation to the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

The court applied the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine, stating that practices not integral to a religion, such as loudspeakers, are not constitutionally protected. This doctrine originated from the Shirur Mutt case (1954) and has been applied in cases like Sabarimala (2018) and Shayara Bano (2017).

6. Broader Significance of the Judgment

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing religious freedoms with public welfare. It reinforces that fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions to protect societal interests, including health and peace. “Justice lies in ensuring that rights coexist with responsibilities, fostering harmony and well-being for all.”