JUDGMENT By the Court.—This petition, which has been filed in the public interest, raises important issues relating to noise pollution, safety of the pedestrians and traffic congestion in NOIDA, which is an important industrial centre of the State and falls within the National Capital Region. 2. The petitioners have highlighted that in the residential Sectors of NOIDA, use of loudspeakers, public address systems, vehicular horns and other sound producing mechanical devices is a common feature. This causes noise pollution and nuisance which not only disturbs the quality of life of the residents but also has an adverse effect on their health. The petitioners have also highlighted the serious traffic problems caused by buses and other commercial vehicles plying on the internal roads of the Sectors and have emphasised that this tends to compromise on the security and safety of the pedestrians and the school going children. Accordingly, the following principal directions have been sought : (i) The respondent authorities be commanded to forthwith prohibit use of loudspeakers within the residential Sectors of Noida by schools and also during the social functions, marriage ceremonies and other such occasions. (ii) The respondents be further commanded to prohibit plying of heavy buses including school buses within the limits of residential sectors having road width of 12 metres or 18 metres. (iii) The respondents be also commanded not to permit any parking place for the vehicles including the school buses within the residential sectors of Noida, which has the effect of virtually clogging the residential sector itself.” 3. An impleadment application has also been filed on behalf of a Residents Welfare Association. Various problems have been highlighted in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application including those relating to traffic jams close to educational institutions resulting in the security and safety of school going children and the problems created by noise pollution. 4. As the issues raised by the petitioners in this petition, which has been filed in the public interest, have far reaching implications in the day to day life of the residents in regard to noise pollution, traffic congestion and security and safety of the pedestrians, it is considered appropriate to expand the ambit of this petition to all the Sectors of NOIDA. 5. 5. Noise pollution is now controlled by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2000 Rules’) which have been framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The reason why it was considered necessary to regulate and control noise producing and noise generating sources, as has been stated in these Rules, is as follows: “Whereas the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources, inter alia, industrial activity, construction activity, fire crackers, sound producing instruments, generator sets, loud speakers, public address systems, music systems, vehicular horns and other mechanical devices have deleterious effects on human health and the psychological well being of the people, it is considered necessary to regulate and control noise producing and generating sources with the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.” 6. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the 2000 Rules. Rule 3 deals with ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones and is as follows : “3. Ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones.—(1) The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall be such as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules. (2) The State Government shall categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas. (3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements, blowing of horns, bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, use of loud speakers or public address system and sound producing instruments and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules. (4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planning developmental activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution as a parameter of quality of life to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. (5) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and Courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules. 7. (5) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and Courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules. 7. Rule 4 deals with the responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures and is as follows : “4. Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures.—(1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise as specified in the Schedule. (2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise. (3) The respective State Pollution Control Boards or Pollution Control Committees in consultation with the Central Pollution Control Board shall collect, compile and publish technical and statistical data relating to noise pollution and measures devised for its effective prevention, control and abatement. “ “Authority” has been defined in Rule 2(c) to mean as follows : “Authority” means and includes any authority or officer authorised by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or any other officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time being in force” Rules 5, 5-A, 6, 7 and 8 are also relevant and are as follows : “5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system and sound producing instruments.—(1)A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority. (2) A loud speaker or a public address system or any sound producing instrument or a musical instrument or a sound amplifier shall not be used at night time except in closed premises for communication within, like auditoria, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls or during a public emergency. (2) A loud speaker or a public address system or any sound producing instrument or a musical instrument or a sound amplifier shall not be used at night time except in closed premises for communication within, like auditoria, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls or during a public emergency. (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 loud speakers or public address system and the like 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 calender year. The concerned State Government shall generally specify in advance, the number and particulars of the days on which such exemption would be operative. (4) The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB (A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB (A) whichever is lower. (5) 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 5 dB (A) the ambient noise standards specified for the area in which it is used. 5A. Restrictions on the use of Horns, Sound Emitting Construction Equipments and Bursting of Fire Crackers.—(1) No horn shall be used in silence zones or during night time in residential areas except during a public emergency. (2) Sound emitting fire crackers shall not be burst in silence zone or during night time. (3) Sound emitting construction equipments shall not be used or operated during night time in residential areas and silence zones. 6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.—Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act: (i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers, (ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or (iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to attract crowds. (iv) whoever, bursts sound emitting fire crackers; or (v) whoever, uses a loud speaker or a public address system. 7. Complaints to be made to the authority.—(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone or, if there is a violation of any provision of these rules regarding restrictions imposed during night time, make a complaint to the authority. (2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force. 8. Power to prohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise.—(1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer incharge of a police station or other information received by him including from the complainant that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating: (a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of - (i) any vocal or instrumental music, (ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, horn, construction equipment, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing sound, or (iii) sound caused by bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, or, (b) the carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise. (2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order: Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant and to the original complainant, as the case may be, an opportunity of appearing before it either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.” 8. Rule 119 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1989 Rules’) deals with horns and sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) are as follows : “119. Horns (1) On and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, every motor vehicle, agricultural tractor, power tiller and construction equipment vehicle manufactured shall be fitted with an electric horn or other devices conforming to the requirements of IS: 1884-1992, specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards for use by the driver of the vehicle and capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle: Provided that on and from 1st January, 2003, the horn installation requirements for motor vehicle shall be as per AIS-014 specifications, as may be amended from time to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards specifications are notified. (2) No motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with any multi-toned horn giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound-producing device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.” 9. The State Government has also framed the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1998 Rules’) and the relevant Rules are as follows: “163. Sounds signals : Restriction on use of.—(1) No driver of a motor vehicle shall sound the horn or other device for giving audible warning with which the motor vehicle is equipped or shall cause or allow any other person to do so, needlessly or continuously or to an extent beyond that which is reasonably necessary to ensure safety. Sounds signals : Restriction on use of.—(1) No driver of a motor vehicle shall sound the horn or other device for giving audible warning with which the motor vehicle is equipped or shall cause or allow any other person to do so, needlessly or continuously or to an extent beyond that which is reasonably necessary to ensure safety. (2) The District Magistrate may, by notification in one or more newspapers in the city or district, as the case may be, and by erection in suitable places of mandatory sign No. M-18, as set forth in Part ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Act, prohibit the use by drivers of motor vehicles of any horn, gong or other device for giving audible warning in any area within the city or district and during such hours as may be specified in the notification : Provided that when the District Magistrate prohibits the use of any horn, gong or other device for giving audible warning during certain specified hours, he shall cause a suitable notice, in English and in the script of the city or district, setting forth the hours within which such use is so prohibited, to be affixed below the traffic sign. ............ 178. Restrictions on the use and the speed of motor vehicles.—A Superintendent of Police within a Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Nagar Panchayat and a Registering Authority in other areas within their respective jurisdiction may make such orders as they think fit restricting the speed of or restricting or prohibiting the use of motor vehicles, generally or any particular class or classes of motor vehicles in any area or on any road. Such orders shall be published by notification in the official Gazette and also by means of notice boards at or near the place of road to which they apply. ........... 180. Such orders shall be published by notification in the official Gazette and also by means of notice boards at or near the place of road to which they apply. ........... 180. Vehicle abandoned on the road.—(1) If any other vehicle is allowed to stand in any place other than a duly specified parking place in such a way as to cause obstruction to traffic or danger to any person, any police officer in uniform not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector or any officer of the Transport Department mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 227 may : (i) forthwith cause the vehicle to be moved under its own power or otherwise cause the vehicle to be taken to the nearest place where the vehicle will not cause undue obstruction or danger; (ii) until it is moved to a position where it will not cause obstruction or danger, take all reasonable precautions to indicate the presence of the vehicle; and (iii) if the vehicle has been stationary in one place for a continuous period of twenty-four hours and adequate steps have not been taken for its repair or removal by the owner or his representative, remove the vehicle and its contents to the nearest place of safe custody. (2) If a mother vehicle has been stationary in a duly specified parking place for a period exceeding that fixed by competent authority in respect of the said place, or if no such period has been fixed for a period exceeding six hours, any police officer in uniform not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector or the officer of the Transport Department mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 227 may remove the vehicle to the nearest place of safe custody. (3) Notwithstanding any fine or penalty which may be imposed upon any person upon conviction for the contravention of the provisions of Section 122 or of any regulation made by a competent authority in relation to the use of duly specified parking place, the owner of the motor vehicle or his heir or assignee shall be liable to make good any expense incurred by any police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector or any officer of Transport Department mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 227 in connection with the moving, lighting, watching or removal of a vehicle or its contents in accordance with sub-rules (1) and (2); and any police officer or any person in to whose custody the vehicle has been entrusted by any police officer in uniform not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector or any officer of the Transport Department mentioned in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 227 shall be entitled to detain the vehicle until he has received payment accordingly and shall upon receiving such payment give a receipt to the person making the payment. ................... 185. Sound signals restriction on use of.—The District Magistrate may, by notification in one or more newspapers in the city or district concerned, as the case may be, and by the erection in suitable places of traffic sign No. M-18, as set forth in the First Schedule to the Act, prohibit the use by drivers of motor vehicles of any horn or other device for giving audible warning in any area within the city or district and during such hours as may be specified in the notification : Provided that when the District Magistrate prohibits the use of any horn or other device for giving audible warning during certain specified hours, he shall cause a suitable notice, in Hindi setting forth the hours within which such use is so prohibited, to be affixed below the traffic sign. ............. 226. Duties, powers and functions of the officers of the Transport Department.—All officers of the Transport Department shall be responsible to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, or notifications made or used thereunder and carry out such duties as have been assigned to them under these rules or such other duties as may be assigned to them. (2) The officers of the Transport Department shall be responsible for the regulation and proper control of traffic and transport within their respective charge and inspection of stands, collecting, forwarding and or disturbing agents, Drivers Training Schools, and Authorised Testing Stations with a view to ensuring adequacy of the provisions of amenities for the public in general.” 10. The Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that noise is more than just a nuisance. The Supreme Court also recognised that interference by Courts in matters concerning noise pollution is necessary as citizens have certain rights being ‘necessity of silence’, ‘necessity of sleep’, ‘process during sleep’ and ‘rest’, which are biological necessities and essential for the health of the citizens. In fact, the Supreme Court has observed that ‘right to live in freedom from noise pollution’ is a fundamental right and noise pollution beyond the permissible limits is an inroad on that right. 11. In Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others, (2000) 7 SCC 282 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by a Welfare Association before the Madras High Court seeking directions to the police authority to take action against complaints lodged for causing noise pollution, observed that as it was undisputed that loud speakers, drums and other instruments were being used during prayers, the High Court was justified in directing the police to take necessary steps to reduce the noise level to the extent permitted under the guidelines. The Supreme Court held that under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, rules for noise pollution had been framed viz. Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and they were required to be enforced. 12. The counsel for the appellant had contended that the right to profess and practice a particular religion was protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention holding that : “13. ............. Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and they were required to be enforced. 12. The counsel for the appellant had contended that the right to profess and practice a particular religion was protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention holding that : “13. ............. the contention with regard to the rights under Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution which are subject to “public order morality and health” are not required to be dealt with in detail mainly because as stated earlier no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including-that of being not disturbed in their activities.” 13. It had also been contended that the noise pollution in the area was due to vehicular traffic. Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court noted : “14. ............. it is to be stated that because of urbanization or industrialization the noise pollution may in some area of a city/town might be exceeding permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under (the Madras Town Nuisance Act. 1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 arc required to be enforced. .........” 14. The Supreme Court further noted: “ ...............We would mention that even though the rules are unambiguous, there is lack of awareness among the citizens as well as the implementation authorities about the rules or its duty to implement the same. Noise polluting activities which are rampant and yet for one reason or the other, the aforesaid rules or rules framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced.” It was also observed by the Supreme Court : “2. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly, old and inform are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as children upto 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.” 15. We also feel tempted to remind all, including the District Administration of Gautam Budh Nagar and the Officers of NOIDA and the Regional Pollution Control Board, about the observations made by the Supreme Court in Noise Pollution (V), In Re Unknown with Forum, Prevention of Environmental & Sound Pollution v. Union of India and another, (2005) 5 SCC 733 , which are as follows : “1. These two matters before us raise certain issues of far-reaching implications in day-to-day life of the people in India relatable to noise pollution vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted in its wide sweep by the constitutional Courts of the country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but several intervenors and interlocutory applications enhanced the scope of hearing and the cases were heard in a very wide perspective centering around Article 21 of the Constitution. Several associated and incidental issues have also been gone into. .................. 10. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all persons. It is well-settled by repeated pronouncements of this Court as also the High Courts that right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence. It guarantees a right of person to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. It is well-settled by repeated pronouncements of this Court as also the High Courts that right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence. It guarantees a right of person to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. Human life has its charm and there is no reason why life should not be enjoyed alongwith all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. None can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance. How and when a nuisance created by noise becomes actionable has to be answered by reference to its degree and the surrounding circumstances including the place and the time. 11. Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)(a) pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this aspect. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this aspect. Two decisions in this regard delivered by High Courts have been brought to our notice wherein the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution has been upheld as the one guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions are Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, (DB) AIR 2001 Delhi 455 and P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker. 1 . We have carefully gone through the reasoning adopted in the two decisions and the principle of law laid down therein, in particular, the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution. We find ourselves in entire agreement therewith. .................. Noise as nuisance and health hazard 15. Noise is more than just a nuisance. It constitutes a real and present danger to people’s health. Day and night, at home, at work, and at play, noise can produce serious physical and psychological stress. No one is immune to this stress. Though we seem to adjust to noise by ignoring it, the ear, in fact, never closes and the body still responds-sometimes with extreme tension, as to a strange sound in the night. 16. Noise is a type of atmospheric pollution. It is a shadowy public enemy whose growing menace has increased in the modern age of industrialization and technological advancement. Although a soft rhythmic sound in the form of music and dance stimulates brain activities, removes boredom and fatigue, but its excessiveness may prove detrimental to living things. Research has proved that a loud noise during peak marketing hours creates tiredness, irritation and impairs brain activities so as to reduce thinking and working abilities. Noise pollution was previously confined to a few special areas like the factory or the mill, but today it engulfs every nook and corner of the globe, reaching its peak in urban areas. Industries, automobiles, rail engines, aeroplanes, radios, loudspeakers, tape recorders, lottery ticket sellers, hawkers, pop singers, etc., are the main ear contaminators of the city area and its marketplace. The regular rattling of engines and intermittent blowing of horns emanating from the caravan of automobiles do not allow us to have any respite from irritant noise even in suburban zones. 17. Industries, automobiles, rail engines, aeroplanes, radios, loudspeakers, tape recorders, lottery ticket sellers, hawkers, pop singers, etc., are the main ear contaminators of the city area and its marketplace. The regular rattling of engines and intermittent blowing of horns emanating from the caravan of automobiles do not allow us to have any respite from irritant noise even in suburban zones. 17. In the modern days noise has become one of the major pollutants and it has serious effects on human health. Effects of noise depend upon sound’s pitch, its frequency and time pattern and length of exposure. Noise has both auditory and non-auditory effects depending upon the intensity and the duration of the noise level. It affects sleep, hearing, communication, mental and physical health. It may even lead to the madness of people. 18. However, noises, which are melodious, whether natural or man-made, cannot always be considered as factors leading to pollution. 19. Noise can disturb our work, rest, sleep, and communication. It can damage our hearing and evoke other psychological, and possibly pathological reactions. However, because of complexity, variability and the interaction of noise with other environmental factors, the adverse health effects of noise do not lend themselves to a straightforward analysis. ................. Judicial opinion in India ............. 117. We have referred to a few, not all available judgments. Suffice it to observe that Indian Judicial opinion has been uniform in recognizing the right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits as an inroad on that right. We agree with and record our approval of the view taken and the opinion expressed by the several High Courts in the decisions referred to hereinabove. .............. How to check/control noise pollution ................. 169. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems has to be regulated, even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law-enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity. 170. Preventive measures need to be directed more effectively at the source. The law-enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity. 170. Preventive measures need to be directed more effectively at the source. To illustrate, the horns which if fitted in automobiles would create honking sound beyond permissible limits, should not be allowed to be manufactured or sold in the market as once they are available they are likely to be used. 171. Loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipments or gadgets which produce offending noise once detected as violating the law, should be liable to be seized and confiscated by making provision in the law in that behalf. ....................” (emphasis supplied) 16. Interference by Courts in noise pollution matters has also been taken note of by the Supreme Court in Farhd K. Wadia v. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 442 and the observations are : “22. Interference by the Court in respect of noise pollution is premised on the basis that a citizen has certain rights being “necessity of silence”, “necessity of sleep”, “process during sleep” and “rest”, which are biological necessities and essential for health. Silence is considered to be golden. It is considered to be one of the human rights as noise is injurious to human health which is required to be preserved at any cost.(See Noise Pollution, Laws & Remedies by Justice Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee)” 17. In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and others, (2012) 5 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court pointed out that taking away the right of natural rest is a violation of human rights and the observations are as follows : “301. Deprivation of sleep has tumultuous adverse effects. It causes a stir and disturbs the quiet and peace of an individual’s physical state. A natural process which is inherent in a human being if disturbed obviously affects basic life. It is for this reason that if a person is deprived of sleep, the effect thereof, is treated to be torturous. To take away the right of natural rest is also therefore violation of a human right. It becomes a violation of a fundamental right when it is disturbed intentionally, unlawfully and for no justification.” (emphasis supplied) 18. It is for this reason that if a person is deprived of sleep, the effect thereof, is treated to be torturous. To take away the right of natural rest is also therefore violation of a human right. It becomes a violation of a fundamental right when it is disturbed intentionally, unlawfully and for no justification.” (emphasis supplied) 18. We must hasten to add that many other High Courts have also dealt with the ill effects caused by noise pollution and it would be appropriate to refer to some of the decisions. 19. In P. Ramakrishna Sastry v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Urban Police, Vijayawada, Krishna Districtand others, 2001 (4) ALD 698 , the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed : “3. However, the A.P. Pollution Control Board in their status report dated 26-2-2001 admits of heavy noise pollution in Vijayawada city caused on account of using of air horns by APSRTC Buses, private tourist buses, lorries. It was pointed out that at junction points, turning of roads, the drivers blow horns at highest pitch as a result whereof, the traffic rules are violated, which result in causing accidents and noise problems. It was stated that noise values observed in Vijayawada city at all the three places viz., Industrial, Commercial and residential areas have exceeded the normal values of noise levels fixed by the Central Pollution Control Board. .......... ..................... 12. There exists difference between sound as part of nature and sound generated by electrical and electronic devices being the contribution of modern science. Although from the inception of the civilization sound is part of the nature, but unwanted noise created from the sources like loudspeakers, air horns fitted to motor vehicles, playing of music records etc., is not desirable. 13. The effect of noise pollution is a matter of great concern to the mankind. Noise not only causes annoyance to mankind outside his home but also invades his home. Noise pollution has been brought within the purview of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended by Act No. 47 of 1987 which came into force with effect from 1-4-1988. It is now established that noise is a form of environmental degradation and it has serious implication on health which can change man’s psychological state by speeding up pulse and respiratory rates. It also impair hearing either permanently or temporarily. Millions of industrial workers are threatened with hearing damage. It is now established that noise is a form of environmental degradation and it has serious implication on health which can change man’s psychological state by speeding up pulse and respiratory rates. It also impair hearing either permanently or temporarily. Millions of industrial workers are threatened with hearing damage. Medical evidence shows that it can cause heart attacks in individual with existing cardiac injury and that continued exposure to loud noise is likely to cause chronic effects such as hyper-tension or ulcer. Noise also causes both injury and nuisance and alarming noise causes disturbance and distraction to the students who are not able to concentrate fully due to irritation caused by such devices. It is also causing adverse effect on infants, sick and elderly persons. ................ 15. Noise is also created by traffic and it also causes disturbed sleep. The citizens have right to sleep peacefully and also a right to a decent environment as highlighted by the Supreme Court in various decisions which are all well known in the field of pollution. In view of the enormous increase in number of motor vehicles of all types every year, the menace of noise pollution is posing problems, to the mankind. The effect of bad night sleep as highlighted by an eminent scientist in the field Fiona Goolee in his article in British medical journal, in which it was stated that noise can have positive effects on health. The effect of bad night sleep includes mood change, reduce cardiovascular performance and poor performance at intellectual and mechanical tasks and it was further observed in a recent review of research into noise and sleep recommends that sound at night in sleeping quarters should not exceed 45 DB (A). It was held that noise also adversely affects behaviour, increasing anxiety and reducing the incidence of helpful behaviour. Levels of aggression are increased by loud noise, an effect which may persist outside the noisy environment. Steel workers have more domestic disputes if they work in noisy areas. Noise is unacceptable not only to human beings but also to animals. There cannot be any doubt that tremendous sound beyond permissible limits is anti-thesis of civilised order. The effect of noise even on the domesticated animals like pet dogs in a common man’s knowledge.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Steel workers have more domestic disputes if they work in noisy areas. Noise is unacceptable not only to human beings but also to animals. There cannot be any doubt that tremendous sound beyond permissible limits is anti-thesis of civilised order. The effect of noise even on the domesticated animals like pet dogs in a common man’s knowledge.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal Alias Bhagat Ji v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, AIR 2001 Delhi 455, the Delhi High Court observed as follows : “14. Noise not only causes irritation or annoyance but it does also constrict the arteries and increase the flow of adrenaline and forces the heart to work faster, thereby accelerating the rate of cardiac ailments, the reason being that continuous noise causes an increase in the cholesterol level resulting in permanent constriction of blood vessels, making one prone to heart attacks and strokes. The health experts are of the opinion that excessive noise can also lead to neurosis and nervous breakdown. There has been a high incidence of emotional disaster among people living near airports, as revealed by study. For children, noise not only causes hearing problems but also other neurological reactions that make the child irritable and hyperactive, and this has been noted for slowing down the process of development of the mental faculties of children. A study conducted by a medical team discovered an increased incidence of birth defect, still births and usually low weight among children born to mothers living near airports. A study of more than 2,25,000 births in Los Angeles area of U.S.A. by Dr. Nowall Jones Professor of Psychology at the University of California, proved that there were more birth defects among the babies whose mothers lived in noise polluted areas near the international airports compared to those who lived in quieter places. Similar results were obtained in a different study near London’s Heathrow airport. Neonatal development is affected if the expectant mother is subjected to continuous noise stress during pregnancy. The result of tests conducted by medical experts, may or may not be accurate, but deserves serious consideration. Abortion because of uproar was known to the poet saint, Tulsidas, in the Sixteenth Century, who sang (The Ramcharit Manas, Sunder Kand 27/1) that the roar of Hanuman, while back from Lanka, brought abortion to many a demoness in the Lanka. The result of tests conducted by medical experts, may or may not be accurate, but deserves serious consideration. Abortion because of uproar was known to the poet saint, Tulsidas, in the Sixteenth Century, who sang (The Ramcharit Manas, Sunder Kand 27/1) that the roar of Hanuman, while back from Lanka, brought abortion to many a demoness in the Lanka. These aspects have been highlighted by a learned author in a recently published article. 15. The measure of noise is known as the decibel. Noise researchers have shown that continuous noise level in excess of 90 decibels (units of measuring noise are called decibels and one decibel is the threshold of hearing, 30 decibels comes near whispering range and 60 decibels denotes the level of normal talk) can cause loss of hearing and irreversible changes in nervous system. The World Health Organisation has fixed 45 decibels as the safe noise level for a city, though the four metropolitan cities of Bombay, New Delhi, Calcutta and Madras have usually registered more than 90 decibels, and Bombay has been rated as the third noisiest city in the world. New Delhi is said to be closely following Bombay in noise pollution and if control measures are not taken to reduce the sound level, the result would be alarmingly disastrous. 16. By the international standards, a noise level up to 64 decibels is considered tolerable. In the world, concern over noise pollution has resulted in introduction of noise proof motor vehicles, construction of sound barriers on roadsides, tunnels instead of flyovers and restrictions on noisy traffic. 17. Noise pollution has, thus, two sources - industrial and non-industrial, but the movement against noise pollution seems to be not that sound in India as in other countries, the reason, according to environmental experts, being that most of the people in India do not consider noise as pollution but as part of routine and modern life. In order to curb noise pollution, it is essential that people realize the dangerous consequences of noise and take some remedial measures. ................ 25. Noise pollution can be curbed by adopting certain measures. Environment eco-friendly technology should be adopted. Machinery should be designed and manufactured in such a way that it should not create more sound than allowable noise limits. In order to curb noise pollution, it is essential that people realize the dangerous consequences of noise and take some remedial measures. ................ 25. Noise pollution can be curbed by adopting certain measures. Environment eco-friendly technology should be adopted. Machinery should be designed and manufactured in such a way that it should not create more sound than allowable noise limits. Roads should be made sound proof, trees should be planted on both sides of the roads and outside the big factories and industries. Public awareness among masses should be created through seminars, conferences and the evil effects of noise pollution should be highlighted. Houses of God should be kept peaceful and noise free as it is rightly said that God is not deaf. Flights of aero planes should be also planned to curb noise. Noise Code regulating all aspects of noise pollution may be enacted. As the problem of noise pollution has already crossed the danger point and noise like a smog is threatening as a slow agent of death, immediate measures are needed to be taken in this regard. ..........” (emphasis supplied) 21. In Janhit Manch and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (2) Mh LJ 284, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Hon. Dalveer Bhandari, C.J. and Hon. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. observed : “1. These proceedings have been instituted in the public interest and seek the “enforcement of all legal provisions” for controlling noise pollution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Noise Pollution (Control and Regulation) Rules, 2000 and directions issued in judicial pronouncements more particularly reproduced in the petition. Other reliefs have been sought including (i) institution of criminal proceedings; (ii) disciplinary action against errant officers; (iii) preparation of silence zone maps; (iv) a prohibition on the use of microphones and music in private premises resulting in noise pollution beyond the prescribed limit under the rules; (v) stipulation of norms for manufacturing fire crackers; (vi) destruction of fire crackers which violate the prescribed rules; and (vii) creation of awareness in regard to the observance of the Noise Pollution Rules. 2. The reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings are substantially, if not in their entirety covered by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in In Re, Noise Pollution (V), MANU/SC/0415/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 3136 . In the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Learned Chief Justice, Mr. 2. The reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings are substantially, if not in their entirety covered by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in In Re, Noise Pollution (V), MANU/SC/0415/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 3136 . In the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Learned Chief Justice, Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti has issued comprehensive directions to the authorities of the Union Government and of the States to enforce norms in relation to the prevention of noise pollution. ......... ...................... 4. The Supreme Court has, in the judgment, considered the entire body of law on the subject. The comprehensive directions which have been issued bind all authorities and necessarily also those within the States. .............. 5. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State with a direction to issue instructions forthwith to all the concerned authorities including local authorities in the State so that the implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court can be commenced forthwith.” 22. In Gandhinagar Bar Association v. State of Gujarat and others (Special Civil Application No. 15082 of 2013, decided on 21 December 2013), the Gujarat High Court observed : “5. Since this is a Public Interest Litigation although confined so far as the District of Gandhinagar is concerned, but taking into consideration the fact that Navratri is being celebrated in the State of Gujarat, every year, we deem fit and proper to dispose of this petition in public interest by issuing directions which shall be implemented and executed all throughout the State of Gujarat henceforth. During the festival of Navratri, ordinarily two issues crop up, (i) the time limit to use the loud speakers and (ii) the steps which are necessary to be taken in the event if there is non-compliance of time limit prescribed so far as the use of the loud speakers is concerned.” What, therefore, follows from the aforesaid discussion is that : (i) The 2000 Rules have been framed to regulate and control noise producing and generating sources as they have deleterious effects on human health and the psychological well being of the people. The ambient air quality standards have been specified in the Schedule to these Rules. The State Government has to ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the prescribed air quality standards. The ambient air quality standards have been specified in the Schedule to these Rules. The State Government has to ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the prescribed air quality standards. All the Development Authorities have to take effective steps to avoid noise menace and achieve the object of maintaining the ambient air quality standards. (ii) The restrictions on the use of loudspeakers, public address systems, sound producing instruments, horns, sound emitting construction equipments contained in the 2000 Rules have to be strictly enforced. (iii) Right to live in freedom from noise pollution is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is an inroad on that right. (iv) Noise pollution has a direct effect on sleep, hearing, communication, mental and physical health. Noise is also created by vehicles and it also disturbs sleep. (v) Law enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities for checking the menace of noise pollution. (vi) The Authority specified in Rule 2(c) of the 2000 Rules has to act when a complaint is made and has to take action against the violator. (vii) All the Officers of the Transport Department have to enforce the provisions of the 1998 Rules. 23. It is, therefore, imperative for the District Administration of Gautam Budh Nagar and the officers of NOIDA and the Regional Pollution Control Board to ensure that the provisions of the three Rules referred to above namely, the 2000 Rules, 1989 Rules and the 1998 Rules as also the directions that have been issued by the Supreme Court noted above are followed in true letter and spirit. 24. We, accordingly, consider it appropriate to issue the following directions : (i) The District Administration of Gautam Budh Nagar and the officers of NOIDA and the Regional Pollution Control Board will act with all seriousness to ensure that there is no noise pollution by use of loud speakers or any other device causing noise pollution beyond the prescribed standard in the 2000 Rules. For this purpose, the required devices to check noise pollution should be made available to those in charge of controlling this menace. (ii) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar shall ensure that strict action is taken against such vehicles which use pressure horns or violate any of the provisions of the three Rules. For this purpose, the required devices to check noise pollution should be made available to those in charge of controlling this menace. (ii) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar shall ensure that strict action is taken against such vehicles which use pressure horns or violate any of the provisions of the three Rules. Information regarding such violation should also be given to the Regional Transport Officer for taking appropriate action. (iii) It is to be noted that noise pollution due to honking by vehicular traffic is also generated due to huge pedestrian traffic on motorable roads as the pedestrian areas are encroached upon by street hawkers and weekly flea markets in the Sectors. This results in severe traffic congestion creating noise of unexpectable level compounded by noise from the market as well. Steps must be taken to ensure that pedestrian areas are kept clear in order that motorable roads are used by vehicular traffic and not pedestrians. The plying of heavy vehicles should also be strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and a constant check should be maintained to take action against such vehicles found plying against the aforesaid Rules. (iv) If “an Authority” as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the Rules has not been designated by the State Government, it be done so at the earliest. (v) If the State Government has not taken steps to categorize areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones as per Rule 3(2) of the Rules, it be also done. (vi) Immediate steps be taken to ensure that all vehicles with pressure horns or multi-toned horns which violate the provisions of 1989 Rules and the 1998 Rules are made to replace their horns with those which are in compliance of the prescribed standards. The enforcement authorities, traffic or the police will take steps to impound vehicles in the event such compliances are not made. (vii) All police stations be informed and made aware that they have to ensure that no loudspeakers or any noise producing activities are permitted within their jurisdiction which are in violation of the 2000 Rules. They must also ensure that any information given by citizens in this regard is immediately acted upon. (vii) All police stations be informed and made aware that they have to ensure that no loudspeakers or any noise producing activities are permitted within their jurisdiction which are in violation of the 2000 Rules. They must also ensure that any information given by citizens in this regard is immediately acted upon. (viii) A copy of this order shall be circulated by NOIDA to all the Residents Welfare Associations (RWAs) through their President/Secretary in order to enlighten them about their rights under the aforesaid Rules and other applicable laws. This will also ensure that the residents are made aware of their right to lodge a complaint with the relevant authority, in case there is any noise pollution of the level prohibited under the aforesaid Rules. The Residents Welfare Associations and other citizen bodies have also to assist in ensuring that there is no noise pollution. 25. The Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar shall file their personal affidavits within a period of eight weeks from today to give details of the steps that have been taken to restrict noise pollution within the permissible limits and the steps that have been taken to ease the serious traffic problems in Gautam Budh Nagar. The Regional Officer of the U.P. Pollution Control Board at NOIDA shall also file his personal affidavit regarding the steps taken by the Pollution Control Board to control noise pollution in NOIDA. The U.P. Pollution Control Board shall also regularly monitor the progress made in this regard. 26. We also deem it fit, in the public interest, to issue notice to the Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association (FONRWA), Community Centre, Sector-52, NOIDA through its President/Secretary to give suggestions to curb the menace of noise pollution and traffic congestion. Let this notice be issued by the office by registered post. In addition, the NOIDA Authorities shall also bring this fact to the notice of FONRWA. 27. List this petition on 3 July 2014. 28. Let this notice be issued by the office by registered post. In addition, the NOIDA Authorities shall also bring this fact to the notice of FONRWA. 27. List this petition on 3 July 2014. 28. Though learned counsel appearing for NOIDA, the State respondents and the U.P. Pollution Control Board will be sending a copy of this order to their respective officers, a copy of this order shall also be sent immediately by Speed Post by the Registry of this Court to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar and the Regional Officer of the U.P. Pollution Control Board at Gautam Budh Nagar. —————