Loudspeakers In Religious Places: What Does The Law Say?

It is a topic that gets politicised every few years – the usage of loudspeakers at religious establishments. Activists have been campaigning for reduction of noise pollution during festivals and religious gatherings and while there have been many court rulings regarding noise at religious affairs, use of firecrackers, vehicular horns and also general reduction of ambient noise, the one issue that attracts political attention is the use of loudspeakers in mosques.

What is the controversy all about?

At a political rally on April 2, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray exhorted his party workers to object to loudspeakers in mosques by playing Hanuman Chalisa in front of them.

While Thackeray's idea defeats the purpose of reducing noise in the area, the timing of the statement in the holy month of Ramzan was seen as a provocation.

The Sri Ram Sene of Karnataka followed up on Thackeray's statement asking for a ban on loudspeakers at mosques in the state, to which, Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai responded saying they would implement the rulings of the High Court regarding the same.

What are the Acts governing usage of loudspeakers?

Usually, the courts have responded to private complaints or public interest litigations filed under public nuisance sections of the IPC/local laws or sections related to noise pollution in the Environment Protection Act.

The Environment Protection Act states that a loud speaker or a public address system can only be used after obtaining written permission from the authority. Furthermore, loudspeakers and amplifiers cannot be used at night except in closed premises or during a public emergency.

The Act also states that states can permit using loud speakers between 10 pm to 12 am on or during any cultural or religious festival of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year.

The act also specifies that the noise level at the boundary of the public place where a loud speaker is being used cannot exceed 10 dB (A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB (A) whichever is lower.

Do religious institutions get exemptions?

The Act provides for discretion of local bodies to grant exemptions for the usage of loudspeakers at night or at other times. This discretion however, cannot be arbitrary.

Moreover, certain places like schools and hospitals are notified as silence zones where special permissions have to be taken for any religious or political gathering and the local body is at liberty to deny permission citing the location to be a silence zone.

But as Awaaz Foundation, a prominent NGO working against noise pollution has found, these norms are not usually adhered to once permission has been granted. Contempt proceedings arising out of such violations often languish for years in courts, with the offending parties eventually getting away with paying a nominal fine.

What have courts said on the issue so far?

First, let us look at the issue of loudspeakers itself. The question whether anyone from the public is allowed to use loudspeakers or amplifiers as they pleased came up in the case of Rajni Kant Verma v State at Allahabad HC in 1957, in which the petitioner challenged municipal bye laws regarding loudspeakers and amplifiers with respect to the Constitutional guarantee of speech and expression.

Here the court observed that use of mechanical instruments like loud speakers and amplifiers is not covered by the guarantee of speech and expression provided under Article 19 (1) (a).

However, in Indulal Yagnik v State of Gujarat, 1962, the court upheld the constitutional right of a person to be able to propagate their ideas to a larger audience with the help of a microphone observing, "If the mechanical appliances and instruments other than the press can help the citizen in reaching a wider circle of audience than the limits of his voice can permit, there does not appear to be any good reason why the citizen should not be permitted to avail himself of them".

The oft-quoted judgement from the Madras high court in the case of M.S. Appa Rao v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, the court, in fact, specifically stated its dissent saying journalism and the use of loudspeakers are not comparable.

In P.A. Jacob v. The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam the judgement held that use of loudspeaker may be incidental to the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, but it is not a matter of right or part of the right; dissenting from the view in the Indulal case.

The judge further observed, "One may put his mind or hearing to his own uses, but not that of another. No one has a right to trespass on the mind or ear of another and commit auricular or visual aggression. Limits must be drawn for liberties, lest they turn into licence, and the antithesis of liberty in its true sense."

This was one of the early cases that dealt with propagation of religious ideas through loudspeakers and amplifiers.

While politicians tend to pit one community against the other during slug fests over loudspeakers, courts have actually dealt with cases related to loud speakers of various religious denominations. An often-cited case is that of Church of God v KKR Majestic Welfare Colony, 2000, where the court observed, "Undoubtedly, one can practice, profess and propagate religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution but that is not an absolute right."

In the case of Om Birangana Religious Society v State and others the court acknowledged the petitioner's right to propagate religion but directed authorities to control the levels of noise thus produced.

Justice Lahoti, in Noise Pollution (V) in Re held that the right to live in comfort and quiet was part of the fundamental right to life as guaranteed in Article 21. The Judgement provided decibel limits for noise in public places and also for firecrackers.

But the judgement also acknowledged that noise is perceived subjectively and held that the law will not take into account the discomfort of a super sensitive person but only that of a reasonable person; observing further, "How and when a nuisance created by noise becomes actionable has to be answered by reference to its degree and surrounding circumstances, the place and time." The interpretation of degree and surrounding circumstances is again subjective and differs from case to case.

What do activists say about the recent interest in the issue?

Anti-noise pollution activists have long strived for politicians to take the issue seriously, with little success. "I am happy that the issue is being talked about, but also unhappy that it is not being taken up in the way we would have liked," says activist Sumaira Abdulali of Awaaz Foundation.

Activists and environmentalists have always approached the issue from a public nuisance and public order perspective and have faced censure from people of various religious denominations over their attempts to reduce noise levels in the country.

Some of the lawyers BOOM spoke to, refused to come on record saying that the interest shown by politicians was actually deviating from the issue of noise pollution.

The legal fraternity seems to be of the opinion that commenting on the political turn of events in the matter, may scuttle their attempts to advocate, in front of a bench, the need for long term behavioural change in the society with respect to noise pollution.