Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday ordered an interim stay on the enforcement of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) rules, amended by the Centre recently, which resulted in eliminating 1,573 notified silence zones ahead of the festival season.
A Full Bench of Justices Anoop V. Mohta, A.S. Oka and Riyaz Chagla held that the amendment was prima facie “unconstitutional” and violated the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The stay order restores the “position prior to August 10 notification (amending the rules)”, the Bench said.
Earlier, hearing in the matter earlier before a Division Bench headed by Justice Oka had led to a confrontation, with the State government alleging that he was ‘biased’. The matter was eventually placed before a Full Bench, and the government tendered an apology to Justice Oka.
ADVERTISEMENT
On August 10, the Centre had issued a notification amending the rules, making State governments responsible for specifically notifying silence zones in their jurisdiction. The Maharashtra government, however, decided against immediately notifying existing silence zones afresh, in effect doing away with noise restrictions near schools, hospitals, courts and religious shrines.
Activists challenged the amendment in the HC through PILs, alleging that it violated constitutional rights, and was an “appeasement move” ahead of Ganeshotsav and Dahi Handi celebrations, when the use of loudspeakers is widespread. The amendment also resulted in nullifying a 2016 judgement of the Bombay HC, which had forbidden the use of loudspeakers within 100 metres of hospitals, educational institutions, courts and religious places even outside the declared silence zones.
The Union government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, denied that the purpose of the amendment was to ‘obliterate’ the HC judgement. “If a State government chooses to not exercise its powers to re-declare silence zones, how can that be a ground to challenge the Centre’s policy?” Mr. Singh argued.
ADVERTISEMENT
The State government refused to commit to imposing fresh noise norms, saying it was granting permission for use of loudspeakers during Ganeshotsav using the existing 1,573 silence zones as ‘guiding principles’. When asked if this meant it would impose restrictions similar to silence zones, the government pleader did not make any categorical statement.
The Bench held that both Centre and State had failed to publish prior notification and invite objections from citizens before making the amendment. This was “contrary to the requirements of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and public interest”, the judges said. “If we were to accept the Centre and the State’s arguments, then as of today there are no silence zones in the city. One can begin using loudspeakers even within five or 10 metres of a hospital or court. This is in violation of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution...especially in the light of the Supreme Court’s order upholding that a citizen cannot be compelled to listen,” the Bench said.
It also turned down the Centre’s request to stay its order staying the amendment for four weeks. The Central government’s lawyer expressed apprehension that the order might lead to a possible law and order situation. The court said the State government had conceded there were no law and order problems when silence zones existed prior to the amendment. It sought the Attorney General’s reply on the Union government’s position by October 6, when the date for the final hearing of these petitions would be fixed.