023_Indiscriminate Use of Loudspeaker and its Legal Control

INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER AND ITS LEGAL
CONTROL
I Introduction
WELFARE AND existence of human race depends upon the equilibrium
between human activities and nature. But increasing activities of man in
modern society have accelerated their effects on natural atmosphere to such
an extent that it has created a problem of environmental pollution which has
become a serious challenge to the very existence of human life. Although
there are various factors responsible for such pollution yet noise is one of
the main polluters, causing various health hazards besides affecting the
normal working of people.
It is due to the advancement of science and technology that noise
has become an environmental problem all over the world. Noise resulting
from the use of vehicles, horns, industries, workshops, radios and loudspeaker, etc., has become a permanent feature of human life. This study is confined only to noise due to use of loudspeaker.
II Loudspeaker and its effects on norma! social life
Among all the sources of noise, loudspeaker has become the most
disturbing in the normal working of people. Its frequent use in jagratas,
akhand paths, qawalies, kavi sammelans, musical nights, political and religious functions, marriage parties and advertisements, besides disturbing
normal life, has an adverse effect on studies of scholars specially during the
period of examinations. Its use has become so much a part of the prayer in
temples, mosques and gurdwaras, etc., that it has made it difficult for people
to enjoy their basic freedom with all human dignity.
Ill Effects on law and order
Sometimes the use of loudspeaker may create a problem of law and
order also and result in communal riots. Recently its misuse has been one
of the reasons in the Meerut communal riots which started in April 1987
and continued for several months. Originally it was an altarcation over a
loudspeaker which was being used by one community on the occasion of
jasuthan ceremony of a newly born son.1 Once again the problem arose
in the same city when a loudspeaker was used from religious places with
a view to instigating the people of one sect against another, throwing the city
into the flames of communal riots. The result was that a large number of
1. Nav Bharat Times (17 April 1987).
1988}
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
205
innocent persons lost their lives and property. To control this situation
an order under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr P C) 1973 was
issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Meerut.2 The object was to
check the activities of anti-social elements, besides putting a ban on the use
of loudspeaker which had created a problem of law and order in the city.
IV Effects on human health
Noise resulting from indiscriminate use of loudspeaker causes various
health hazards. These are :
(1) Loss of hearing
Generally 0 to 5 db (decible) js the minimum hearing limit for adults
while it can be perceived even at-5 (minus five) in case of children. However, in case of adults the average hearing is found to be 0 to lOdb. But a
loss of 0.3 db is caused every year in urban areas due to environmental noise
e.g., high pressure of sound of vehicles, loudspeakers (amplifiers), marriage
bands and disco-music, etc. A noise of 165 db of 0.004 second can cause
permanent hearing loss. Up to 80 db at speech frequency it can be tolerated,
but above this it is definitely harmful. This 10 per cent loss of hearing
takes place at the age of 30 years if one resides permanently in a noisy
area.1 Maximum permissible level of amplified sound is shown in table 1.
Table 1
Hertz
Decible
63
125
250
500
1000
4000
8000
103
96
91
87
83
81
79
(2) Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen consumption and sleeping disturbances
Sound causes disturbances in emotions. The emotion provoking stimuli results in increase in heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen consumption. There is a quantitative relation between the degree of emotion provoked, and the magnitude of cardio-vascular response.4 Sometimes it is
2. Letter No. ST/ADM 'city'/87 dated 16 June 1987.
3. Scott Brown, Diseases oj the Ear, Nose and Throaty vol.2, ch. 16(1971).
4. J. Brod, "Haemodynamic Basis of Acute Pressure Reactions and Hypertension", in. J. Wills Hurst (ed.), The Heatt 1802 (4th ed. 1978). See also, M.D. BodgonofT,
J.J. Combs, Jr., G.D.N. Bryant and J.V. Warren, ''Cardiovascular Responses in Experimentally induced Alterations of Affect", in J. Wills Hurst, ibid.
5. S.M. Grundy and A.C. Griffin, "Relationship of Periodic Mental Stiess to Serum
Leproproteins and Cholesterol Level", in J* Wills Hurst, ibid.
206
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
observed that severe emotional stress by disturbance in sleep shows rise in
serum cholesterol level which is one of the risk factors in precipitating
coronary heart disease.5 Even sudden emotional upset can lead to cardiac
arrythimias in cases of coronary artery disease.
(3) An analysis of opinion survey of medical practitioners
An interview schedule 'Appendix A' was prepared for medical practitioners with a view to collecting their expert opinion about the health hazards
resulting from indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. 15 medical practitioners
of academic taste including distinguished physicians, cardiologists, ENT
and child specialists, were selected for this purpose. It was found that all
of them were definite about the effects of noise on human health and normal
working.
A questionnaire was prepared to elicit their opinion about the effects
of noise of loudspeaker on various ailments mentioned therein. It is noteworthy that all the 15 respondents unanimously exercised their option for
hearing ailment resulting from indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. Also,
that, (/) cardiovascular and psychological ailments, (//) speech defects,
and (Hi) foetal disorders, are caused due to noise of loudspeaker was the
view of 12, 8 and a large number of medical practitioners, respectively.
Moreover sleeping disturbances, irregularity in metabolism, body-aches
are also its consequences. A summarised response of medical practitioners
has been set out in table 2.
Table 2
Distribution of the numbers of respondents and then response in connection with
various ailments caused by noise of loudspeaker
Name
of
ailment
No. of respondent
naming
ailment
No. of respondents
not exercising option
Total
Hearing defect
15
—
IS
Speech defect
S
1
15
Cardio-vascular
12
%
15
Physiological
11
4
15
Psychological
12
T,
15
Foetal
9
6
15
Irregularity in metabolism
1
14
15
Body-aches and sleeping disturbances
1
14
15
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
207
The second part of the questionnaire contains a list of several ailments
which can be aggravated on account of the noise of loudspeaker. These
include tetanus, migraine, hypertension as unanimously pointed out by
all medical practitioners. Besides 14 respondents confirmed in this category ailments like epilepsy, cardio-vascular disorders and schizophrenia.
Furthermore to the question as to whether there was awareness of any provision in medical-jurisprudence against noise, only 4 out of 15 respondents
answered in the affirmative, without having any specific reference.
On the basis of information supplied in the questionnaire, it is proved
that the problem of noise has also been discussed by the medical association
and the suggestion made that it must teach people about the effects of noise.
Further it may be noted that some respondents took enough precautions
against noise pollution in their clinics, by adopting measures such as use
of posters, signboards and keeping their clinic away from busy roads.
Most ofthe medical practitioners opined tha+ there must be a strict legislation to curb the indiscriminate use of loudspeaker.
V Use of loudspeaker and amplifier in exercise of personal freedom
Under article 19 of the Constitution, every citizen has been guaranteed
the right to freedom including the right of speech and expression. Similarly article 25 provides for freedom of religion. Now the question arises
as to how far loudspeaker can be used as a means to propagate one's ideas
under article 19 and his religious beliefs under article 25? No doubt article
19(1) guarantees six freedoms to every citizen but these have been subjected
to reasonable restrictions.6 Similarly right to freedom of religion (including
right to profess, practice and propagate) under article 25 has also been made
subject to public order, morality, health and provisions of part 1TI of the
Constitution.
Tn fact freedom of speech, expression and religion are inseparable as
one cannot be enjoyed without exercise ofthe other. If anyone wishes
to propagate his religious ideas as guaranteed under article 25, it would be
possible only through the exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression under article J9(l) (a) of the Constitution.
The controversial question as regards use of loudspeaker under right
of freedom of speech and expression, came up for consideration before
the Allahabad High Court in Rajni Kant v. State of V.P? It was held
that the use of mechanical instruments like loudspeaker and amplifier is not
covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under article
6. The restrictions arc : sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the
state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence*
7. AXR. 1958 All. 360.
208
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
19(1) (a). A similar question was taken up by the Supreme Court in Bedi
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana.^ It was observed that the right to
propagate religion is not absolute. In this case the applicants were refused
permission to use loudspeaker under the Punjab Instrument Control of
Noise Act 1956, which was challenged on the ground that it violates articles
19 and 25 of the Constitution but action of refusal was held not violative
of these articles.
Even before this decision of the Supreme Court, the controversial
question relating to use of loudspeaker for propagating religious ideas came
up before the Calcutta High Court in Masud Alam v. Commissioner of
Police* \n this case the commissioner of police had banned its use for
calling azan five times a day. Tt was held that such use, causing disturbance
in the area, could not be justified on the ground that it was in connection
with religious purposes. The court relied on State of Bombay v. Narasu
Appa Mali}0 where it was observed :
[A] sharp distinction must be drawn between religious faith and
belief and religious practices. What the State protects is religious
faith and belief. If rebgious practices run counter to public order,
morality or health or a policy of social welfare upon which the
State has embarked, then the religious practices must give way
before the good of the people of the State as a whole.11
Therefore, public order, morality, health and other restrictions of part
Til of the Constitution intend to control all the freedoms including the use
of loudspeaker for the good of the people. But among them public order
has been one of the main grounds of refusal to use loudspeaker as a means
of expression, as in Bedi Gurcharan Singh?2 In this case Sikhs were prohibited the use of loudspeaker for holding dewan on particular days of the
Hindu mela of Bawan-dwadshi as it was necessary for maintaining peace
and harmony among different communities.
The test of public order has been laid down by the Supreme Court
in Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal.™ The court observed :
[Wjhether an act affects law and order or public order...is: Does
it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so
as to amount to a disturbance ofthe public order or does it affect
merely an individual leaving the tranquallity of the society unturbed? 14
8. (1975) Cri. L.J. 917.
9. (1954-55)59 C.W.N. 293.
10. A.T.R. 1952 Bom. 84.
11. Id. at 86.
12. Supra note 8.
13. A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1656.
14. Id. at 1659.
1983]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
209
Similarly public health has also been another ground to restrict the
use of loudspeaker.
The question, as to how far the right to play loudspeaker, lies within the scope of public health, came up for consideration
before the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla.15 The
court held :
It cannot be said that public health does not demand control
ofthe use of such apparatus by day or by night or in the vicinity
of hospitals or schools or offices or habited localities. The
power to legislate in relation to public health includes the power
to regulate the use of amplifiers as producers of loud noises when
the right of such user, by the disregard of comfort of and obligation to others, emerges as a manifest nuisance to them.16
The USA Supreme Court was of this view in its earlier decision that
restriction on loudspeaker was against the right to freedom of speech.17
But it differed in its later decision and held that reasonable restriction on
amplifier does not violate constitutional rights.18
From the decisions of various courts it can be concluded that use
of loudspeaker and amplifier cannot be claimed as a matter of right under
article 19(1) (a) or 25. However, its use cannot be prohibited unless it creates
any problem to public order, morality, health or any other restrictions
mentioned under part III of the Constitution.
VI Loudspeaker noise as an interference in personal liberties
Personal liberty means a bundle of rights, very essential for the existence
of human life.18" In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India19 the Supreme Court
pointed out that the word "personal liberty" does not mean only liberty
of the person but also liberty or rights attached to the person (jus-personarum). A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed in A. V.
Chardet v. Delhi,20 that the expression "life and personal liberty"includes
a variety of rights which though not enumerated in part III of the Constitution, and provided they are necessary for the full development of the
personality ofthe individual, can be included in the various aspects of liberty
of the individual. In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi,21 the
Supreme Court held that the right to "life" enshrined in article 21 cannot
be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than
15. AJ.R. 1959 S.C. 544.
16. Id. at 546-57.
17. Saria v. People of State of New York, (1948) 92 Law Ed, 1574 (B).
18. Koacs v. Cooper, (1940) 93 Law Ed. 513.
18a. See arts. 19 to 21 of the Constitution.
19. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
20. A.I.R. 1978 Del. 308 at 314.
21. A.I.R. 1981 S.C, 746.
210
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
just physical survival. The right is thus confined to the protection
of limb and faculty, but includes 'the right to li\Q with human dignity', and
all that goes along with it.
A very important question, namely how far the violation of liberties,
necessary for enjoyment of life, caused by environmental pollution, lies
within the scope of article 21, has been answered by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad.22 It was observed :
[T]he enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed
by Art21 ofthe Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's -gifts without (which) life cannot be enjoyed.
There can be no reason why practice of violent extinguishment of
life alone should be regarded as violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by
environmental pollution and spoliation should also be regarded
as amounting to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution.23
Freedom of the right to sleep, food, recreation, live peacefully, etc.,
can be said to be gifts of nature for mankind. It is true that these rights
have not been specifically mentioned as personal freedoms under any constitutional provision, which are quite essential for the development of human
personality and enjoyment of life. If these freedoms are disturbed by indiscriminate use of loudspeaker, their violation would certainly lie within
article 21 of the Constitution specially in those cases where licence for its use
has been granted directly by the state administration or indirectly through
its corporate bodies. In such circumstance the state should not be allowed
to run away from its responsibility if it fails to control the manner of use of
loudspeaker which ultimately results in violation of personal freedoms
besides causing a problem of environmental pollution through its noise.
VII Use of loudspeaker and its legislative control
It must be made clear that the problem of legislative control consists
of two parts, first permission for use of loudspeaker as a means of expression; and second, manner of its use which may result in violation of personal freedoms.
(1) Permission for use of loudspeaker
Some legislative attempts to control the manner of using loudspeaker can be summarised as follows ;
(/) Punjab Instrument (Control oj Noise) Act 1956 : The Act was
passed with a view to controlling noise including the use of loudspeaker.
Its constitutional validity was upheld by the Supreme Court in BedVs case.24
22. A.I.R. 1987 A.P. 171.
23. Id. at 181.
24. Supra note 8.
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
211
(h) Bombay Police Act 1951 : The Act conferred some special powers
on the district magistrate and commissioner of police to make rules relating
to :
(/') licencing and playing of music, sound of horn and noisy instalment in street or public places; and
(//) conduct, behaviour or action of person constituting assemblies
and processions.
Certain rules of this Act were challenged before the Supreme Court
in Himat Lai v. Police Commissioner25 on the ground that refusal of permission to hold a public meeting with a direction to the applicant that "holding meeting with or without loudspeaker amounts to offence" was violative
of article 19(1) (b) and (d) of the Constitution. It was said that section
33(1) (p) of the Act, which enables the police commissioner to make rules
to regulate the assemblies and processions, is not violative of rights under
that article. But rule 7 of section 33(1), which confers arbitrary powers
on the commissioner without giving any guidance as to circumstances in
which permission could be refused, was struck down as violating such
rights.
(Hi) U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 : The State of Uttar Pradesh delegated its legislative power to city boards under section 298 of this Act.
This section empowers them to make rules relating to health, safety and
convenience of the inhabitants of the municipal areas. Such rules of the
Allahabad municipality, which made it mandatory to secure permission
ofthe executive officer before playing of loudspeaker, weie challenged before
the Allahabad High Court in Rajni Kant v. State2* It was held that the
rules were valid and not violative of article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
In this context reference27 can be made to a government order issued
by the Additional Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the
use of loudspeaker. Under it the District Magistrate, Secretary or Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, are empowered to grant permission
for use of loudspeaker. But very little has been said about the manner
of its use. The only condition mentioned under rule 2(5) is that it would
be used at minimum volume, but this seems to be quite inadequate to check
its indiscriminate use.
(2) Manner of use of loudspeaker
That part of the problem concerned with the manner of use of loudspeaker needs still more discussion, since it is this which sometimes amounts
to indiscriminate use. Some important legislations in this regard may be
summarised as follows :
0) Bihar Control of Use and Play of Loudspeaker Act 1955 : Section 3 of
25. 1973 Cr. L.J. 204.
26. Supra note 7.
27. No. 1162/B/ll-Kha-853/68 dated 5 April 1969.
212
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
this Act provides restrictions against the use and play of loudspeaker. It
reads *
No person shall use and play a loudspeaker —
(0 Within such distance as may be prescribed from a hospital, a
building in which there is telephone exchange, or
(//) Within such distance as may be prescribed from any
educational institution maintained, managed recognised or
controlled by the State Government or University established
under any law for the time being in force or a local
authority or admitted to such University or any hostel
maintained, managed, or recognised by such institution
or hostel in the use of students.
00 Ajmer Sound Amplifier's Contnl Act 1953 : This Act attempted
to control the use of sound of loudspeaker which was challenged in State
of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla2S as ultra vires the state legislature. The respondents were charged under the Act for misusing permission by use of loudspeaker in such a manner as being audible beyond 30 yards and placing
it at a height of more than six feet. It was held by the Supreme Court that
legislation is within the powers conferred by entry no. 6 and conceivably
entry no.l of the State list. Therefore, it does not encroach upon the field
of entry no.31 of the Union list though it incidentally touches it.
The Act shows how a check on the audible limit of loudspeaker can
can be made possible by way of fixing the height while placing it for use.
In fact it may be a useful guideline for controlling the noise of loudspeaker.
VIH Existing remedies
The following remedies are available against the indiscriminate use
of loudspeaker :
(l) Law of torts
A civil remedy against the noise of loudspeaker can be sought under
the law of torts if it amounts to private or public nuisance.
(0 Private nuisance : It is an act which interferes materially with
the health, comfort or convenience of any individual as distinguished from
the public at large. It includes acts like a wrongful escape of smoke, smell,
fumes, gas, noise, water, filth, etc. Private nuisance cannot be made the
subject of indictment but may be a ground of civil action for damages or
injunction or both.
00 Public nuisance : It is an act affecting the public at large or some
considerable portion of it, and it must interfere with rights which members
of a community might otherwise enjoy. It includes acts which, (a) seriously
28. Supra note 13.
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
213
interfere with the health, safety, comfort or convenience of the public generally; or (b) tend to degrade public morals, e.g., carrying on trade that causes
offensive smell or intolerable noises, etc. Generally it does not giw
rise to any civil action for a private person as it is meant only for the sake
of the public. However, if any private person wants to bring an action
in respect of public nuisance, he must show, (/) particular injury to himself
beyond that which is suffered by the rest of the public; (ii) such injury to
to be direct; and (///) such injury to be of substantial character.
Among all these requirements it is very difficult to establish (/). The
reason is that people have different capacities of tolerance and standards.
A particular type or degree of noise, intolerable or nuisance for one person,
may not be so for another. Hence an action against noise cannot amount
to public nuisance unless affirmed by a considerable number of persons.
Due to the aforesaid reasons remedy under public nuisance for any
private person against noise affecting public at large is very difficult. Similar
is the case of an action brought by a considerable number of persons under
public nuisance against any noise, as it may not be considered a nuisance by
each one of them due to their different capacities of tolerance and social
status. Thus cases of noise affecting the public at large are increasing
without any effective control making it difficult for the people to enjoy
their freedom with all human dignity.
(2) Indian Penal Code
Public nuisance has been made actionable under section 268, I P C .
It reads :
A person is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any,
common injury to the public in general who dwell or occupy
property in the vicinity or which must necessarily cause injury,
obstruction, danger or annoyance to person who may have occasion to use any public right.
(3) Criminal Procedure Code
Section 133, CrPC empowers the executive magistrates to pass such
orders as may be necessary for removal of the nuisance from any public
place. Such actions can be taken either on police report or otherwise
against any unlawful obstruction, conduct of trade, occupation, keeping
of any good or merchandise if injurious to the health or physical
comfort of the coinmumty.
Furthermore under section 144, CrPC executive magistrates can
issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. They
214
JOURNAL OF 7HE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
can pass ex pai'te orders for the purpose of preventing obstruction, annoyance
or injury to any person lawfully employed, danger to human life, health,
safety, a disturbance of public tranquillity, a riot or an affray. But such
orders cannot remain in force for more than two months. If however
the state government considers it necessary for preventing, 0) danger to
human life, (ii) health, (Hi) safety, (iv) riot, or (v) an affray, they can be
extended for six months.
A study of the aforesaid provisions thus shows that a civil remedy
against noise exists in both the cases of public and private nuisance while
criminal remedy against it can be sought only in case of public nuisance
as the noise has not been made an offence under private nuisance.
IX Duties of states and citizens
Some important duties have also been conferred on states and citizens
on the national and international level for maintaining natural environment
so that a healthy and peaceful atmosphere could be prepared for present
and future generations.
(1) International Conference on the Human Environment in 1972
For the first time the problem of human environment was taken up
at a universal level at Stockholm in 1972. It conferred some important
duties on the states as well as citizens to control the problem relating to
natural environment. It provides that, (/) man has the fundamental rights
to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment
of equality that permits a life of dignity and well being; and (//) man bcais
a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generations.
(2) Constitution of India
0) Article 47 lays down that the duty of the state is to, (a) raise the
level of nutrition and standard of living ; and (b) improve public health.
00 Article 5l~A(g) confers such duty exclusively on citizens in order
to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
Since the problem of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker I elates to
public health, standard of living and natural environment, etc., it lies within
these constitutional provisions.
X An analysis of empirical opinion survej
A study of mdisciiminate use of loudspeaker would remain incomplete unless made empirically in context of the existing situation in India
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE
USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
215
society. Therefore an empirical survey against indiscriminate use of loudspeaker was conducted to elicit public opinion. A sample of 100 respondents
belonging to different occupations in the Muzaffarnagar city was drawn
for this purpose. It comprised 15 medical practitioners, 10 members each
from, (0 legal practitioners, (ii) students, (in) teachers, (iv) businessmen,
(v) servicemen, (v0 official (5 each from judiciary and administrative side),
(vii) housewives, (viii) villagers, who often visited the city, and 5 social
workers. For this purpose an interview schedule29 was prepared for the
general public with a view to eliciting their opinion on specific questions.
The data collected through the interview schedule may be analysed
as follows :
A good number of respondents, viz., 85 out of 100 condemned the continuous use of loudspeaker for a long time, while 9 respondents liked its use
and the remaining 6 did not exercise their option. A majority of respondents also criticised the use of loudspeaker, 0) at the time of sickness, study,
sleep, high worries in mind; (ii) while children are preparing for examination; and (Hi) in busy markets where it creates hindrances while talking with
customers (table 3).
Table 3
Response of the respondents against the use of loudspeaker for a long time
Use of loudspeaker at the time of
Like
Dislike
Neutral
Not
responded
Total
Talking with customers
2
86
5
1
100
Children preparing for
examination
—
92
2
6
100
Sickness
1
94
5
—
100
Sleeping hours
3
79
16
2
100
Studying hours
2
92
4
2
100
High worries in mind
6
82
9
3
100
Taking the objectivity into consideration it was also asked how, for the
use of loudspeaker is liked at the time of marriage, festival, birthday, meeting
of any political party, advertisement and religious functions like jagrata,
akhand path and kirtan, etc. Most of the respondents favoured the use
of loudspeaker at the time of marriage, festival and birthday celebration.
While on the other hand, its use for political and public meeting, jagrata,
akhand path and kirtan, etc., has been condemned (table 4).
29. See Appendix B.
30, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Torts 451, 454 (20th ed. 1973).
216
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
Table 4
Response ofthe respondents tegarding the use of loud speaker on different occasions
Use of loudspeaker on the
occasions of
Like
Dislike
Neutral
Not
responded
Marriage
63
25
11
1
100
Birthday
55
30
12
3
100
Advertisement
32
43
22
3
100
Celebration of political part}
32
45
21
2
100
Festival
62
29
9
100
Jagrata, akhand path and kit tan.
etc.
25
66
9
100
Public meeting
33
40
22
5
100
14
2
100
Religious function
53
31
Total
The table shows that 62 respondents liked the use of loudspeaker at
the time of festivals and 63 on marriage occasions. But quite a different
attitude is seen as regards its use for jagrata, akhand path and kirtan, etc.,
with a majority of 66 respondents condemning it. A small number of 25
respondents liked its use on such occasions while the remaining 9 did not
exercise their option.
The question was also asked as to how the respondents react when
they come across a situation of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. A
large number of 47 respondents stated that they could not take any action
since, m their opinion, it enhances enmity with neighbours and cicatesa
quarrelsome situation. Hence there is alienation of respondents on this
issue. Only 10 respondents ever tried to get it switched off by their own
efforts. It was also noticed that the use of loudspeaker is increasing every
day. 59 out of 100 respondents used it on various occasions while another
39 had never done so and the remaining kept silent on the issue.
Furthermore respondents expressed themselves against the indiscriminate use of loudspeaker specially when children were preparing for
their examinations. A majority of 58 respondents were prepared to switch
off their loudspeaker if so asked during the period of examination while
37 opted to use it at the lowest pitch and the rest did not give their option
on either side.
Several questions were also framed with a view to ascertaining the knowledge of the respondents as regards the existing legal measures against the
indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. It is remarkable that 52 respondents
were aware of such measures In spite of this only 13 respondents ever
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
217
made any complaint against such use, while the remaining 24 repeated,
once again, the plea that such complaints tend to affect smooth relations
ultimately resulting in enmity with neighbours.
The vital issue before the respondents was whether there can be any
effective legislation for controlling the indiscriminate use of loudspeaker.
A large number of 92 out of 100 respondents were in favour of enacting a
strict legislation to control such use of loudspeaker. When they were
asked about modus operandi of its control, only 16 favoured absolute prohibition of its use while 51 suggested control of its time and volume. A
vast majority of 78 respondents were interested that the use of loudspeaker
be controlled both during day and night.
It has also been pointed out by the respondents that there may be
several hindrances in the way of implementation of such legislation against
indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. These are: (0 weakness of controlling
agencies; (ii) illiteracy; (Hi) lack of awareness towards noise; and (iv) a high
degree of tolerance among the people.
One more remarkable feature of this survey is that most of the respondents have appreciated the idea of introducing voluntary organisations
for controlling indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. In their view such organisations can play a vital role in propagating the hazardous consequences resulting from the noise of loudspeaker which would help in creating
awareness among the people. A majority of 72 respondents exercised
their option in favour of such organisations. Similarly a good response
was shown by the respondents for introducing mohalla samitis for the purpose of controlling indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. 69 respondents
exercised their option in favour of the proposal. In fact they were quite
optimistic about the success of mohalla samitis.
XI Suggestions
It can be said that indiscriminate use of loudspeaker has become
a problem of the day throughout the country especially in urban areas.
Therefore, it has become necessary that this be controlled through strict
legislation based at the national level. In this context the following few
important suggestions can be made :
(1) Creation of public awareness
It is undoubtedly true that any check on indiscriminate use of loudspeaker would not be possible unless awareness about the effects of its noise
is created among the people. For this purpose voluntary organisations,
medical associations and health departments can play a vital role, by making
use of posters and signboards for a wide propagation of the hazardous
effects of noise pollution created by loudspeaker. This can be more effective, if made a part of the curriculum of school education so that awareness
can also be created against the noise light from childhood.
218
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTIIU7E
[Vol. 30 : 2
(2) Noise-free zones
The problem of noise can be controlled to a great extent if noisefree zones are declared in such areas where peace is specially needed.
{i) Areas afnoise-jree zones : Such zones should be declared around
schools, colleges, public libraries, hostels, hospitals, nursing homes and
offices of public importance. The heads of above mentioned institutions
and organisations may be declared responsible to supervise the noise-free
zones.
(//) Special magisterialponers for incharges : To make these noise-free
zones more effective, some special magisterial powers should be conferred
on such incharges, so that they can take action against the indiscriminate
use of loudspeaker in their areas.
(Hi) Compulsory deposits : To ensure a proper use of loudspeaker,
it is necessary that some provision for depositing security amount other than
tax fee against its permission should be made compulsory. Incharges 6f
such noise-free zones should be authorised to realise the fine out of such
deposits in case any misuse of loudspeaker is found in their areas.
(3) Creation of mohalla samitis
The problem of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker can be controlled
by mohalla Samitis if created for this purpose. The permission for use
of loudspeaker or its denial should not be made without the recommendation
of these samitis. Besides, the samitis can also play a significant role in their
areas for propagation of hazardous consequences resulting from the noise
of loudspeaker. Some economic assistance should also be provided for them
so that they can meet their petty expenses incurred in posters and signboards, etc., used for this purpose.
(4) Use of loudspeaker in religious affairs
As discussed above the use of loudspeaker cannot be claimed as a
matter of right either under the right of speech and expression or under
religious freedom as mentioned in article 19 or 25 of the Constitution.
Therefore, its use in religious places for the performance of prayers should
be strictly banned as this is intended to be a silent communication with the
Creator and its transformation into noisy fanfare is neither artistic nor
necessary. Similarly use of loudspeaker in jagratas, akhand paths and
kirtans, etc., should be strictly banned because their use has become more
a source of nuisance than religious inspiration for the people of that area.
The opinion of the majority of people in the above mentioned survey has
been found against its use on such occasions.
(5) Permitted use of loudspeaker
Majority of people in the above mentioned survey liked the use of
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
219
loudspeaker at the time of birthday, marriage and religious functions, etc.
However such use should not be permitted unless the following conditions
are fulfilled :
(/) No permission for the use of loudspeaker in inhabited areas should
be granted without the approval of the respective mohalla samiti of that
area.
(ii) The use of loudspeaker should be made in such a manner that
it may not violate the freedoms of neighbours. For this purpose its timings,
volume and height should be fixed in such a way that its sound may not be
audible beyond a certain limit.
(6) Remedy for a private person under public nuisance
The existing remedy for a private person in cases of public nuisance
should be made more easy because under the existing provisions of public
nuisance if any remedy is sought he would have to establish that injury
was beyond that which is suffered by the rest of the public. This would
be very difficult for him to prove in cases of noise because people may differ
as regards the very nature of noise due to different capacities of tolerance
and social backgrounds. There may be cases when a particular type of noise
of loudspeaker is alleged by a private person as public nuisance while it
may be liked by others. In such circumstances a private person would
not be able to establish that comparatively he has suffered if others are not
sufferers at all. In this way his suit would fail.
Therefore, the above mentioned legal requirement to establish special
injury under public nuisance should not be made compulsory for a private
person in cases of noise resulting from the use of loudspeaker.
(7) Remedy under private nuisance
A provision of criminal remedy against the noise of loudspeaker should
also be made available if the same amounts to private nuisance.
(8) Offences made cognisable
Offences relating to noise of loudspeaker should also be made cognisable so that persons misusing the loudspeaker may be arrested without
warrant.
(9) Separate court constituted
A provision for constituting a separate court for the trial of offences
relating to noise of loudspeaker, should be made in this proposed legislation.
A study of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker thus reveals that its
noise is working as a slow poison for our present and future generations
besides causing a problem of environmental pollution. As this problem
is common to urban areas in different parts of the country, it has become
220
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
necessary that indiscriminate use of loudspeaker should be curbed forthwith
through effective legislation, based on a national level.
Although the matter about use of loudspeaker lies within entry 6 of
the State list which includes matters relating to public health, sanitation,
hospitals and dispensaries, yet the Central Government is also fully competent to pass such a legislation with a view to controlling its use on a national
level under article 246 read with entry 31 of the Union list wheih includes
the matter relating to post and telegraphs, telephones, wireless, broadcasting and forms of communication.
If such legislation is passed it would be helpful in creating a better
natural environment for the development of human personality and enjoyment of life. Moreover, it would also provide ample opportunities for the
people to enjoy their freedoms with all its human dignity.
N. S. Kamboj*
*LL.M , Lecturer, Department of Law, DA.V ( P G )
UP.
College, Mu?af!arnagar,
1988]
INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
221
Appendix A
Questionnaire for medical practitioner
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
Does the noise of loudspeaker affect human health
(Yes/No)
Does its noise affect normal working
(Yes/No)
Does it cause certain ailments
(Yes/No)
If yes, how many of the following ailments :
(i) Hearing defect
(Yes/No)
(ii) Speech defect
(Yes/No)
(Hi) Cardio-vascular
(Yes/No)
(iv) Physiological
(Yes/No)
(v) Psychological
(Yes/No)
(vi) Foetal
(Yes/No)
(v/7) Others (please mention)
(Yes/No)
Does noise aggravate the symptoms of the following :
(i) Tetanus
(Yes/No)
(//) Epilepsy
(Yes/No)
(/II) Migraine
(Yes/No)
(iv) Hypertension
(Yes/No)
(v) Schizophrenia
(Yes/No)
(r/) Others (please mention)
In which diseases, you advice your patients to take precaution against
such noise ?
Is there any provision in medical jurisprudence against noise ? (Yes/No)
Has such problem of noise ever been raised in your medical association?
(Yes/No)
If yes, what measures were suggested ?
Have you taken any measures to prevent noise at your clinic ? (Yes/No)
(A) If yes, what measure
(B) If not, why
Your comments about noise
Age
Name
Medical
Sex
Qualification
Specialisation
Duration of Practice
Place
Date
Signature
222
JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
[Vol. 30 : 2
Appendix B
Questionnaire for ordinary person
Sir,
We are making a legal sudy of the noise resulting from the use of loudspeaker in context of its effects on health and reaction against it among
the people. Several alternate answers* have been suggested against each
question. Please select any of them which you consider most appropriate.
1. How do you like the use of loudspeaker if it is made for a long time
at the time of your normal working ?
2. How do you like the loud sound of loudspeaker under the following
circumstances :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(/)
at the time you talk with customer
at the time of sleep
at the time of study hours
when your children prepare for examinations
when you are worried
when any member of your family is sick
3. How do you like the loud sound of loudspeaker under the following
circumstances :
(a) at the time of marriage
(b) at the time of festival
(c) at the time of birthday
(d) at the time of advertisement
(e) at the time of meeting and victory of political parties
(/) at the time of jagrata, akhand path and kirtan, etc.,
(g) at the time of public meeting
4. In which of the following ways you reacted against the use of loudspeaker, made during the night hours :
(a) I thought to get the loudspeaker switched off with the help of
neighbours but could not spare the time
(b) I never paid any attention
(c) I could not go to get it switched off as it develops hostile relations
(d) It had no effect on me
(e) I made attempts to get it switched off
5. Have you ever used loudspeaker on the following occasions :
(a) akhand path, kirtan, jagran, etc.,
(b) Marriage ceremony
*The answers to question 1-3 are :
(/) Good (//) V. good (Hi) Bad (i\) V. bad (v) No effect.
1938J
INDISCRIMINATE
USE OF LOUDSPEAKER
223
(c) Election victory
(d) Sale advertisement
(e) Never
6. If you are requested to switch off your loudspeaker on the plea that
examinations are going on, then what would be your reaction ?
(a) I shall switch it off
(b) I shall continue it
(c) I shall use it at lowest volume
7. Do you know about the existence of any legal provision for controlling the loud noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Such provision exists
(b) Such provision does not exist.
(c) Not known
8. If you know about the existence of the aforesaid provision, then in
which ofthe following ways you reacted against the noise of loudspeaker :
(a) I made a complaint
(b) I never made any complaint
(c) I could not spare time for this
(d) It develops hostile relations
(e) i made a complaint but the officers never paid any attention
(f) I made a complaint and got the loudspeaker switched off
9. How would you like any strict legislation if passed for the control of
the noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Good
(b) Bad
(c) No effect
10. If you are in favour of strict legal control for the noise of loudspeaker,
then in which of the following ways would you prefer :
\a) By controlling the timings of its use
(b) By controlling its volume
(c) By putting an absolute ban on its use
11. In which of
loudspeaker
(a) During
(b) During
(c) During
the following ways do you prefer a control on the use of
:
night hours only
day hours only
both night and day
12. What do you think about the success of such legislation, if enacted for
the strict control of the noise of the loudspeaker?
(a) No possibilities
(b) Minimum possibilities
(c) It would be more effective
224
JOURNAL OF 7HE I\DI4N
L iW INS1IIUIL
[Vol. 30 : 2
13. Which of the following obstacles may come in the way of effective
implemention of such legislation :
(a) Illiterate society
(b) Weakness of agencies responsible for the implementation of such
legislation
(c) Unlimited tolerance of the people about the noise
(d) Lack of awareness among the people about the noise
14. Are you in favour of constituting the voluntary organisations for the
purpose of teaching persons about the hazardous consequences resulting from the noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Yes
(/;) Not too much
(c) No
15. Can
(a)
(b)
(c)
such voluntary organisations be successful ?
Yes
Not too much
No
16. Are you in favour of constituting mohalla samitis for the purpose of
controlling the noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Yes
ib) Not too much
(c) No
17 Do you think that such mohalla samitis can be successful in controlling such noise of loudspeaker 9
(a) Yes
(b) Not too much
(c) No
Any special comments
Name
Age
Religion
Qualification
Sex
Place
Occupation
Date