68. The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of this chapter to establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control, to authorize the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce, and to provide information to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products. 

The Act further provides for -

1. Identification of major noise sources 

2. Noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce 

3. Labeling

4. Quiet communities, research, and public information

5. Development of low-noise-emission products 

6. Motor carrier noise emission standards

Noise Regulation Law-Japan.

69. The purpose of this Law is to preserve living environment and contribute to protection of the people's health by regulating noise generated by the operation of factories and other types of work sites as well as construction work affecting a considerable area, and by setting maximum permissible levels of motor vehicle noise.
70. The prefectural governor shall designate concentrated residential areas, school and hospital zones, and other such areas in which it is deemed necessary to protect the living environment of the residents from noise, as areas subject to the regulation of noise produced by specified factories and specified construction work.

71. The prefectural governor, while designating the areas pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article, shall establish regulatory standards for specified hours and zones of said areas within the scope of the standards set forth by the Director General of the Environment Agency according to the necessary degree of noise control in regard to specified factories for specified hours and zones.

72. Persons installing specific facilities are liable to report the same to the prefectural governor within 30 days. 

73. The governor has the powers to order change in the outlay of the factory when they do not confer to the noise regulations. 

74. Any party who plans to undertake construction projects which involve specified construction work in designated areas, shall file a report with the prefectural governor no later than seven (7) days prior to the beginning of said construction.

75. The prefectural governor shall be responsible for the monitoring of noise levels in designated areas. 

76. For the regulation on noise caused by announcement through the use of loudspeakers and noise emitted during the night time operation of bars and restaurants, local government shall take measures necessary to protect the living environment, including restrictions on operating hours, in accordance with the local physical and social conditions. 

77. The regulations also prescribe the permissible noise levels for the various areas, as well as the time periods between which noise- emitting machines can be used. 

Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Pollution From Environmental Noise(adopted on October 29, 1996)

78. This Law is enacted for the purpose of preventing and controlling environmental noise pollution, protecting and improving the living environment, ensuring human health and promoting economic and social development.

79. For purposes of this Law, "environmental noise" means the sound that is emitted in the course of industrial production, construction, transportation and social activities and that impairs the living environment of the neighbourhood.

80. The competent administrative department for environmental protection under the State Council shall, in accordance with the national standards for acoustic environmental quality and the State's economic and technological conditions, fix national limits for environmental noise emission.

81. Every project under construction, renovation or expansion must conform to the regulations of the State governing environmental protection. 

82. The industrial noise emitted to the living environment of the neighbourhood within an urban area shall be kept within the limits set by the State on emission of environmental noise within the boundary of an industrial enterprise. 

83. The construction noise emitted to the living environment of the neighbourhood within an urban area shall be kept within the limits set by the State on the emission of environmental noise within the boundary of a construction site.

84. It is forbidden to manufacture, sell or import automobiles that emit noise beyond the limits set on noise level. 

85. All units and individuals are forbidden to use high-pitch loudspeakers in urban areas where noise-sensitive structures are concentrated.

86. Any unit or individual suffering from the hazards of environmental noise pollution shall have the right to demand the polluter to eliminate the hazards; if a loss has been caused, it shall be compensated according to law.

"Noise emission" means emission of noise from the source to the living environment of the neighbourhood.

"Noise-sensitive structures" mean structures that require a quiet environment such as hospitals, schools, government offices, research institutions and residential buildings. 

"Areas where noise-sensitive structures are concentrated" mean such areas as medical treatment areas, cultural, education and research districts and areas where government offices or residential buildings constitute the main buildings. 

"At night" means the period from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 

Australia

87. In New South Wales (NSW) no single government authority has the responsibility or capacity to be able to minimise all forms of noise pollution. The State is excluded from control of noise in a number of areas by commonwealth legislation. These include aircraft noise, where noise limits could affect trade, and the setting standards for noise emissions from new vehicles. In areas where the State does have powers to control noise the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has an overall responsibility for environmental noise (as distinct from occupational noise), under the Noise Control Act 1975. The Act deals with the prevention, minimisation and abatement of noise and vibration and empowers the EPA, the Waterways Authority, local government and the police for these purposes.

88. The EPA controls noise from scheduled premises those required by the Noise Control Act to have a licence and noise associated with rail traffic and the construction or upgrading of freeways and toll roads. The Police and local council are generally responsible for neighbourhood noise issues and have authority to issue noise abatement directions to control noise from premises and for noise from burglar alarms. Local council have an essential role in minimising the effects of excessive noise, particularly in their local residential areas, from smaller factories, non-scheduled premises and public places. The Waterways Authority has specific responsibilities in relation to noise from vessels in navigable waters. 

89. Under the provisions of the Noise Control Act 1975 in NSW the railway system is classified as scheduled premises and as such the EPA has a regulatory role, and seeks to achieve noise targets for rail operations throughout the State to minimise the impact on local residents. 

90. The EPA issues licences for the management of scheduled premises. When issuing a licence the EPA sets initial noise limits that are achievable with the operation of plant and equipment currently installed, operated and maintained effectively. To achieve further improvements in noise exposure to residents, negotiations with the licensed premises are carried out and can be incorporated in the licence as Pollution Reduction Programs (PRPs). The EPA is currently working with industry to reduce noise levels from major sources.

91. The Noise Control (Miscellaneous Articles) Regulation 1995 was introduced to cover community noise issues not covered by previous legislation. It includes limitations on burglar alarms for both residential and commercial premises. Changes have been made to the nighttime control of common domestic noise sources such as power tools, air conditioners, amplified music and lawn mowers. Under the new regulation only one warning to the offender is required and the warning is valid for 28 days. If an offence is committed within this period a fine can be issued without further warnings. The previous regulation warning was only active for 12 hours which meant it was not very effective with repetitious offences typical in suburban areas. 

92. The Noise Control (Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Accessories) Regulation 1995 controls the noise of individual motor vehicles. It includes a provision to control noise from a range of accessories including horns, alarms, refrigeration units and sound systems. It also places responsibility to ensure compliance of repairs/modifications of vehicles on the vehicle repairers. 

93. In addition to the measures introduced to reduce the source and transmission of noise, measures can be undertaken to noise proof buildings thereby reducing the occupant exposure to noise. 

Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance

94. The Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance allows for normal activities during regular hours; however, it does attempt to eliminate interference from noise when most of us want to rest and relax. It also seeks to control disturbing and unhealthy levels of noise in general. Key provisions of the Noise Control Ordinance:

(i) Provide day/night sound level limits.

(ii) Establish "quiet hours."

(iii) Define sounds that constitute noise disturbances.

(iv) Establish a "nuisance provision" that prohibits certain noises at any time.

95. A noise disturbance, as defined by the ordinance, is any sound that is unpleasant, annoying, or loud; abnormal for the time or location; and prejudicial to health, comfort, property, or the conduct of business. Under the ordinance, it is unlawful to create a noise disturbance anywhere during "quiet hours," including multi- family buildings and townhouses. The "nuisance provision" prohibits some noise disturbances anywhere at any time.

96. The Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance promotes peace and quiet for everyone by covering a wide variety of residential and business situations. The Ordinance does not cover noise from aircraft and railroads or motor vehicles on public roadways, as Federal and State governments supersede local regulation. Also exempt are emergency operations by public utilities.

97. Among other provisions, the Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance makes it illegal to:

(i) Operate, or allow to be operated, a radio, television, or other electronic sound-producing device on public or private property if the sound exceeds 55 decibels at the receiving property line.

(ii) Create a noise disturbance during "quiet hours" in a residential zone or multi-family structure.

(iii) Operate any equipment that exceeds the receiving property line sound level limits.

(iv) Allow an animal or fowl to create a noise disturbance at any time.

(vi) Load or unload material during "quiet hours."

(vi) Create a noise disturbance across property lines during "quiet hours" by operating power equipment mounted on a motor vehicle; for example, refrigerated trucks or commercial vacuum cleaners.

(vii) Permit construction noise to exceed 75 decibels, with allowances for higher decibel levels under an approved "Noise Suppression Plan."

                                                                                 VI
                                                                    Statutory Laws in India

98. Not that the Legislature and the Executive in India are completely unmindful of the menace of noise pollution. Laws have been enacted and the Rules have been framed by the Executive for carrying on the purposes of the legislation. The real issue is with the implementation of the laws. What is needed is the will to implement the laws. It would be useful to have a brief resume of some of the laws which are already available on the Statute Book. Treatment of the problem of noise pollution can be dealt under the Law of Crimes and Civil Law. Civil law can be divided under two heads (i) The Law of Torts (ii) The General Civil Law. The cases regarding noise have not come before the law courts in large quantity. The reason behind this is that many people in India did not consider noise as a sort of pollution and they are not very much conscious about the evil consequences of noise pollution. The level of noise pollution is relative and depends upon a person and a particular place. The law will not take care of a super sensitive person but the standard is of an average and rational human being in the society. 

The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

99. In order to curb the growing problem of noise pollution, the Government of India has enacted the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Prior to the enactment of these rules noise pollution was not being dealt specifically by a particular Act. 

"Whereas the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources, inter-alia, industrial activity, construction activity, generator sets, loudspeakers, 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 standard in respect of noise;"

100. The main provisions of the noise rules are as under:

1. The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas.

2. The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones has been specified for in the Schedule annexed to the Rules.

3. The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.

4. An area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules. 

5. A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority and the same shall not be used at night i.e. between 10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m.

6. A person found violating the provisions as to the maximum noise permissible in any particular area shall be liable to be punished for it as per the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.

Indian Penal Code

101. Noise pollution can be dealt under Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code, as a public nuisance. Under Section 268 of this Code, it is mentioned that 'A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. 

102. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.' 

103. Sections 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the punishment for public nuisance. 

Criminal Procedure Code

104. Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the magistrate has the power to make conditional order requiring the person causing nuisance to remove such nuisance. 

The Factories Act, 1948.

105. The Factories Act does not contain any specific provision for noise control. However, under the Third Schedule Sections 89 and 90 of the Act, 'noise induced hearing loss', is mentioned as a notifiable disease. Under section 89 of the Act, any medical practitioner who detects any notifiable disease, including noise- induced hearing loss, in a worker, has to report the case to the Chief Inspector of Factories, along with all other relevant information. Failure to do so is a punishable offence. 

106. Similarly, under the Model Rules, limits for noise exposure for work zone area has been prescribed. 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rules framed thereunder

107. Rules 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, deal with reduction of noise. 

Rule 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 including construction equipment vehicle and agricultural tractor 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 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 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. 

Rule 120. Silencers

(1) Every motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with a device (hereinafter referred to as a silencer) which by means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as practicable, the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape of exhaust gages from the engine. 

(2) Noise standards- Every motor vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to conform to noise standards specified in Part E of the Schedule VI to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, when tested as per IS: 3028-1998, as amended from time to time.

Law of Torts

108. Quietness and freedom from noise are indispensable to the full and free enjoyment of a dwelling-house. No proprietor has an absolute right to create noises upon his own land, because any right which the law gives is qualified by the condition that it must not be exercised to the nuisance of his neighbours or of the public. Noise will create an actionable nuisance only if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of life, judged by ordinary, plain and simple notions, and having regard to the locality; the question being one of degree in each case. 

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

109. Noise was included in the definition of air pollutant in Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in 1987. Thus, the provisions of the Air Act became applicable in respect of noise pollution, also. 

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

110. Although there is no specific provision to deal with noise pollution, the Act confers powers on Government of India to take measures to deal with various types of pollution including noise pollution. 

Fireworks

111. The Explosives Act, 1884 regulates manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import & export of explosives. Firecrackers are governed by this Statute. Rule 87 of the Explosives Rule, 1983 prohibits manufacture of any explosive at any place, except in factory or premises licensed under the Rules. 

112. In India there is no separate Act that regulates the manufacture, possession, use, sale, manufacture and transactions in firecrackers. All this is regulated by The Explosives Act, 1884. The Noise that is produced by these fireworks is regulated by the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. 

VII
JUDICIAL OPINION IN INDIA

113. In Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal v. The State MANU/PH/0003/1958, accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 290 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and was fined Rs. 50 for causing noise and emitting smoke and vibrations by operating of heavy machinery in the residential area. The orders of the trial court was upheld by the District Magistrate in appeal. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana also upheld the decision of the courts below and dismissed the revision petition. In the case of Bhuban Ram and Ors. v. Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas AIR 1919 Calcutta 539, it was held that working of a paddy husking machine at night causes nuisance by noise and the occupier was held liable to be punished under Section 290 IPC. In Ivour Heyden v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1984 Cri LJ (NOC) 16, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh excused the act of playing radio loudly on the ground that it was a trivial act. Careful reading of Section 95 of IPC shows that only that harm is excused which is not expected to be complained by the person of ordinary temper and sense. 

114. In Rabin Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal MANU/WB/0058/1985 the use of air horns was prohibited by the court to prevent noise pollution. The Court observed:
"...it is found that the atmosphere and the environment is very much polluted from indiscriminating noise emitted from different quarters and on research it was found that persons who are staying near the Airport, are becoming victim of various ailments. Such persons even become victim of mental disease. On such research it was also found that workers in various factories even become deaf and hard of hearing. It was further found on such research that as a result of this excessive noise pollution, people suffer from loss of appetite, depression, mental restlessness and insomnia. People also suffer from complain of excessive blood pressure and heart trouble. It is not necessary to go into the question about direct effect of such noise pollution because of indiscriminate and illegal use of such electric and air horn as it is an admitted position that the same is injurious to health and amongst different causes of environmental pollution, sound pollution is one which is of grave concern."

115. In the case of People United for better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal MANU/WB/0025/1993 the Calcutta High Court observed:
"In a developing country there shall have to be developments, but that development shall have to be in closest possible harmony with the environment, as otherwise there would be development but no environment, which would result in total devastation, though, however, may not be felt in present but at some future point of time, but then it would be too late in the day, however, to control and improve the environment. In fact, there should be a proper balance between the protection of environment and the development process. The society shall have to prosper, but not at the cost of the environment and in similar vein, the environment shall have to be protected but not at the cost of the development of the society and as such a balance has to be found out and administrative actions ought to proceed accordingly."

116. In Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner of police, Calcutta, MANU/WB/0078/1997 it has been held 

"Article 19 of the Constitution of India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution or which takes away that communities safety, health and peace. ...A citizen or people cannot be made a captive listener to hear the tremendous sounds caused by bursting out from a noisy fireworks. It may give pleasure to one or two persons who burst it but others have to be a captive listener whose fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and other provisions of the Constitution are taken away, suspended and made meaningless. ...Under Article 19, read withy Article 21 of the constitution of India, the citizens have a right of decent environment and they have a right to live peacefully, right to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which are all necessary under Article 21 of the Constitution."(Headnote)

117. In Appa Rao, M.S. v. Govt. of T.N., (1995) 1 LW 319 (Mad), the Madras High Court taking a note of the serious health hazard and disturbance to public order and tranquility caused by the uncontrolled noise pollution prevailing in the State, issued a writ of mandamus for directing State Government to impose strict conditions for issue of license for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers and for directing Director-General, Police (Law and Order) to impose total ban on use of horn type loudspeakers and amplifiers and air horns of automobiles. 

118. In P.A. Jacob v. the Superintendent of Police, MANU/KE/0001/1993, it was said - "The right to speech implies, the right to silence. It implies freedom, not to listen, and not to be forced to listen. The right comprehends freedom to be free from what one desires to be free from. Free speech is not to be treated as a promise to everyone with opinions and beliefs, to gather at any place and at any time and express their views in any manner. The right is subordinate to peace and order. A person can decline to read a publication, or switch off a radio or a television set. But, he cannot prevent the sound from a loudspeaker reaching him. He could be forced to hear what, he wishes not, to hear. That will be an invasion of his right to be let alone, to hear what he wants to hear, or not to hear, what he does not wish to hear. One may put his mind or hearing to his own uses, but not that of another. Noone has a right to trespass on the mind or ear of another and commit auricular or visual aggression. A loudspeaker is mechanical device, and it has no mind or thought process in it. Recognition of the right of speech or expression is recognition accorded to a human faculty. A right belongs to human personality, and not to a mechanical device. One may put his faculties to reasonable uses. But, he cannot put his machines to any use he likes. He cannot use his machines to injure others. Intervention with a machine, is not intervention with, or invasion of a human faculty or right. No mechanical device can be upgraded to a human faculty. A computer or a robot cannot be conceded the right under Article 19 (though they may be useful to man to express his faculties). No more, a loudspeaker. The use of a loudspeaker may be incidental to the exercise of the right. But, its use is not a matter of right, or part of the right".

119. In Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.,MANU/DE/0654/2001, it was said that "Pollution being wrongful contamination of the environment which causes material injury to the right of an individual, noise can well be regarded as a pollutant because it contaminates environment, causes nuisance and affects the health of a person and would therefore, offend Article 21, if it exceeds a reasonable limit." 

120. The Supreme Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn.,MANU/SC/0537/2000 held that the Court may issue directions in respect of controlling noise pollution even if such noise was a direct result of and was connected with religious activities. It was further held:-

"Undisputedly, no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. 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 daytime 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, the old and the infirm 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 up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible (sic sensitive) to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.

"Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules for noise-pollution level are framed which prescribe permissible limits of noise in residential, commercial, industrial areas or silence zone. The question is - whether the appellant can be permitted to violate the said provisions and add to the noise pollution. In our view, to claim such a right itself would be unjustifiable. In these days, the problem of noise pollution has become more serious with the increasing trend towards industrialisation, urbanization and modernisation and is having many evil effects including danger to health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance etc. This also affects animals alike. The extent of damage depends upon the duration and the intensity of noise. Sometimes it leads to serious law and order problem. Further, in an organized society, rights are related with duties towards others including neighbours.........

.....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 Nuisances Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced."

121. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India MANU/SC/0285/1990 the Supreme Court reiterated the need to create separate tribunals and asserted the need to appoint a body of experts to advice the Government on environmental issues.

122. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/1081/2003 this Court has emphasized the need for creating environmental awareness amongst students through education.

123. We have referred to a few, not all available judgments. Suffice it to observe that Indian Judicial opinion has been uniform in recognizing 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 in-road 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.

Desirability of fixing chemical composition for the firecrackers

141. The learned Amicus Curiae has suggested that the Government of India should fix the permissible chemical compositions for the firecrackers. He submitted - "To control the noise levels from firecrackers, it was felt that apart from firecrackers carrying on its label, the extent of its noise level emission, it may be appropriate if the Government was to fix norms regarding chemical composition and the size of firecrackers so as to confirm to the notified noise emission norms." 

142. In UK as well, the method of determining the noise level of a firecracker, is by fixing its chemical contents. The British Standard Institute has developed the British Standard Fireworks, Part 2. Specification for Fireworks (BS 7114: Part 2) of 1988, which prescribes the maximum permissible quantity of chemicals in a particular firework. The Standards prescribe the various specifications with which the firework has to comply for it to be manufactured or used in UK. 

143. During the course of hearing, submissions in extenso were made on the comparative merits and demerits of the two systems namely (i) measuring the noise level of firecrackers in decibels and thereby securing the implementation of rules in this regard, and (ii) securing the implementation of the rules by restricting and prescribing the size of chemical content, chemical composition etc. of firecrackers. A tabulated statement of such comparison has been placed on the record by the Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers Association. 

144. Briefly stated, it is pointed out that if the firecrackers are allowed to be manufactured in the manner in which they are being done now and the noise level is left to be measured at the time of bursting of firecrackers, several difficulties in implementation would arise, frustrating the regulation. Very expensive instruments and gadgets are necessary to measure the sound level of firecrackers. A sound level meter with required capabilities may cost around Rs.3 lacs or upwards. Factors like wind velocity, temperature and humidity have a bearing on the measurement of noise level. The gadgets for monitoring these factors shall also be required to be installed at the testing field. Technically trained persons would be required to be posted at every point of measuring. Testing the sound level of firecrackers at the point of bursting would mean that the firecrackers have already reached the market. The persons to be hauled up would be unwary retailers or users and it would be difficult to fix the responsibility on the manufacturers or distributors. Difficulties of proof in the court of law would also arise. The noise level in a firecracker is not stable. The same firecracker may have a different noise level at the time of manufacturing and at the time of use on account of climatic changes which would naturally occur by the lapse of time and change of place. If the noise level was to be tested at the factory, the firecracker would have already been manufactured. There would also be other difficulties inasmuch as the clearance for marketability would depend on the firecrackers satisfying the test carried out and at that point of time the firecrackers have already been manufactured and shall have to be only destroyed if unsuccessful in the test. That apart, the manufactures are spread throughout the country. Some of them are small-scale industries. Either many a testing stations shall have to be established or else the manufacturers would be required to go to centralized testing stations carrying untested firecrackers. Both seem to be difficult situations. 

145. On the other hand, prescribing of weight and composition of chemicals to be used in manufacturing firecrackers would mean experiment or analytical tests being carried out at any one station followed by publication of results and laid down standards. Experimental checks would be enough to satisfy the authorities, if the manufacturers were following the laid down standards as to size of firecrackers, weight and percentile composition of chemicals used. This system would enable identification of illegal firecrackers with comparatively more ease. Size and mass of charge are two basic factors that determine the noise level of a firecracker. By restricting these two prime factors, noise standard is achieved more effectively. Though other factors like climatic conditions may affect the noise level to some extent, but this system seems to us to be more dependable and logical, at least on the materials made available before us. 

146. On a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of their chemical composition, we feel that a change in the method of evaluating the firecrackers shall surely be more beneficial. It shall reduce the expenditure that shall otherwise have to be incurred on expensive instruments that are necessary for the purpose of measuring sound. The firecrackers shall easily be identifiable on the basis of their mass of charge, and weight of the chemicals contained in the firecrackers can also be easily measured. There shall not be too much need of the personnel technically qualified for measuring sound, as what would then be needed, would be to simply weigh the chemical constituents. It shall to a great extent also be successful in putting an end to illegal fireworks, which come in bigger sizes, as they now shall be more easily identifiable. In short the implementation of the rules relating to firecrackers shall be easier and carried out by the enforcing authority more easily.

147. Keeping all these considerations and the various submissions made before this Court in mind we are of the opinion that a method as proposed by the learned Amicus Curiae, of fixing the maximum chemical composition for each and every firecracker, keeping in mind the limit of 125dB(AI) as the maximum permissible limit, should be adopted. Every manufacturer should on the box of each firecracker mention details of its chemical contents as well. In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention these details or in cases where the contents of the box do not match to the chemical formulae as stated on their box, the manufacturer shall be liable for criminal prosecution. 

148. The Department of Explosives should in public interest undertake necessary research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical formulae for each firecracker. The Department shall at the time of giving the license for manufacturing a particular firecracker shall specify the ratio as well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used for the purpose. 
Response during hearing

149. The civic awareness towards prevention of noise pollution in India is not as high as is expected. It is regrettable to see that people indulge into making noise beyond tolerable limits and create health hazard unmindful of consequences which are likely to befall not only on others but also on themselves who create noise. The enactment of laws has failed to create the requisite awareness. The best time to create awareness is in the childhood. At middle- school level education and in the age of adolescence the children should be taught in the schools, and in the homes as well by the parents-- What are the consequences of noise pollution and how much health hazard is created by bursting firecrackers? 

150. An awareness towards protecting the environment from all sorts of pollutants and destructive activities needs to be created in the minds at an younger age. Suitable courses of study need to be devised by preparing text-books to be handed down to the youth in its shaping age and whilst they are still in schools.

151. We are happy to note the way the people of the country and especially the younger generation has responded to the interim order made from time to time by this Court. News reports came to our notice wherein certain schools were stated to have organized special lectures for the children pointing out the adverse effects of noise pollution created by firecrackers just before the schools closed for Diwali festival. The children decided not to burst firecrackers during Diwali Festival. Some volunteered and took a vow to burst such firecrackers as do not create intolerable noise and confining their such fun and frolic only to the hours of the day and not to do so during the hours of night. Such a response from young boys and girls who are our future and the educational institutions on whom lie the responsibility of shaping the future of this country is most welcome.

152. Certain incidental and associated issues require to be dealt with and that we do hereafter.

Fixing of time limit for bursting firecrackers -- Is relaxation desirable for festivals?

153. The learned Amicus Curiae in his suggestions filed on 17th September 2001 had suggested that the "Bursting of crackers should be prohibited during night time, between 10.00 p.m. and 06.00 a.m.". The Court had agreed and directed, vide Order dated 27.9.2001 -- "The use of fireworks or firecrackers shall not be permitted except between 6.00 a.m. and 10.p.m. No fireworks or firecrackers shall be used between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. The Government of India has also expressed its opinion that there should be no relaxation in the time limit for bursting firecrackers. Relaxation of restrictions on bursting of crackers from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. shall not be given as it is night time. During the night time, people sleep and the high level of noise has deleterious effects on the health and well being of the people." 

154. Several interlocutory applications have been filed in this Court, wherein it was pleaded that restriction on bursting of firecrackers in the night should be removed during the Diwali Festival. Similar relaxation was demanded for other festivals. These applications highlighted practices prevalent in some of the western countries wherein such relaxation is allowed. We do not think that we will be justified in granting any such relaxation. Indian society is pluralistic. People of this great country belong to different castes and communities, have belief in different religions and customs and celebrate different festivals. We are tolerant for each other. There is unity in diversity. If relaxation is allowed to one there will be no justification for not permitting relaxation to others and if we do so the relaxation will become the rule. It will be difficult to enforce the restriction.

155. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal MANU/WB/0211/1998 has expressed the following view: 
"The condition of the European countries, England and America cannot be equated with the condition prevailing in the State of West Bengal, particularly in the City of Calcutta. ...West Bengal has got its own peculiar problem and this Court cannot decide a matter looking at the Europe or America where the amenities and the facilities are better. Density of population is very thin. Roads are maintained in a perfect order. Traffic noise is insignificant. The use of horns by vehicles is a thing which is prohibited there unless in case of emergency. People are disciplined. Traffic moves in a disciplined manner. No horns are there. The Ambient Noise Level in those countries are not at par with those noise level in the City of Calcutta and/or in different parts of State of West Bengal.
Accordingly, whatever may be decided by the European countries or America, cannot have any direct bearing on the fixation of the sound level in the State of West Bengal. In other civilized countries, cars move without making any noise or sound. Condition of the roads is such that it cannot create any noise beyond tolerance. People in those countries are not in the habit of creating unnecessary sounds but in our country because of the gift of the technology sound has become a source of pleasure for few people including some young people. Use of unnecessary horn in vehicles has become a part and parcel of Indian culture".

156. The picture of the entire country compared with the State of West Bengal does not bear any material difference. Thus a rule, practice or provision as to relaxation in Europe or America may not be of much help for us. They do not have many festivals or celebrations round the year. Their festivals and events are only at national level and one for all, unlike ours. Further, in the European countries or even in America an insignificant percentage of the population indulges in bursting crackers. Very few families, mainly Indian, in these countries celebrate the festival of Diwali and burst crackers. Thus the noise pollution produced by this small use of firecrackers is not a cause of worry in these countries. 

157. The situation in India is almost the opposite. The streets are congested and the density of population per square kilometer is one of the highest in the world. Firecrackers are burst in almost all the houses, thus leading to pollution in the form of noise and smoke- both on a large scale, making it a cause of worry. 

158. It is a judicially noticeable fact that in advanced countries there is a move for collective celebration of festivals. For example, in United States, on May Day, a show of fireworks is arranged outside the city. People assemble in large numbers to witness such show which is officially arranged by the State. Such example can be emulated in our country. People belonging to that section of the society which wishes to celebrate a festival or an occasion may be encouraged to organize such event collectively and may have a show of fireworks away from the residential locality. Such a move would save the people from the hazardous effects of noise pollution caused by fireworks and at the same time bring the people together and contribute in developing closeness, unity and brotherhood.

159. In our opinion the total restriction on bursting firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am must continue without any relaxation in favour of anyone.

Whether such restriction is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution ?

160. The affidavit filed by Mr. Mariappan, the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers Association, alleges the restriction on bursting firecrackers to amount to infringement of religious rights under Article 25. He says -
"Therefore, the interference with the date and time of celebrating the festivals, amounts to infringement of religious rights under Article 25 and the limitation under Article 21 does not cause any health hazard."

161. The Court by restricting the time of bursting the firecrackers has not in any way violated the religious rights of any person as enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution. The festival of Diwali is mainly associated with pooja performed on the auspicious day and not with firecrackers. In no religious textbook it is written that Diwali has to be celebrated by bursting crackers. Diwali is considered as a festival of lights not of noises. Shelter in the name of religion cannot be sought for, for bursting firecrackers and that too at odd hours.

162. Another argument that has been put forward to remove the restriction during festivals is that they are celebrated by most of the people and that an inconvenience to a few should not become the reason for restraining a greater lot. 

163. In P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, MANU/KE/0001/1993, it has been said "However wide a right is, it cannot be as wide, as to destroy similar or other rights in others. Jefferson said: No one has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. J.S. Mill said: If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and if only one person was of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

164. If at all the people feel it necessary to burst firecrackers they can choose and go for such firecrackers which on being burst emit colours or lights mainly and produce very little or no sound. Their use can be permitted. The Department of Explosives can, while working out formulae for firecrackers, also along side classify the crackers into two categories that could be: (i) sound emitting crackers, and (b) colours/light emitting crackers. A few examples of such colour emitting crackers are, snake tablets, sparklers, pencils, hunters, chakri, colour rockets, flowerpots, parachutes, etc. Category (b) firecrackers may not have restriction as to timings. Though, it would need expert examination and opinion if colour-emitting crackers also emit fumes and gases which though not source of noise pollution yet would cause air pollution, equally bad. Till such time the Department of Explosives makes any such classification there shall be a total ban on bursting of firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Can an exception be carved out for firecrackers meant for export exclusively?

165. Should the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, be amended in such a way that the firecrackers manufactured for export and use in other countries are exempted from the Indian noise standards?

166. Mr. Mariappan, the Secretary of The Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufactures' Association, had in his affidavit dated 8th February 2002, requested the Court to remove the restriction on manufacturing fireworks meant for exporting only and which are in excess of the sound levels prescribed for fireworks within the country. It is submitted, "The Indian Standards on noise of firecrackers do not have any relevance to firecrackers intended for export. But the order of the Hon'ble Supreme court prohibits manufacture of firecrackers generating noise level exceeding 125 dB(AI) or 145 dB(C)pk at 4 maters distance from the point of bursting. There is a total restriction on the manufacture of fireworks and crackers without any discrimination being made between firecrackers that are manufactured for use in India and those for use in foreign countries. The trade having been globalised, Indian firecrackers have to necessarily comply with foreign standards if they are to enter into the international markets. The Department of Explosives is already having various provisions laid down under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 1983, which govern the export of fireworks. Prior approval from the Department of Explosives is imperative for every export of fireworks. Therefore the comprehensive position now imposed on firecrackers should be modified exempting firecrackers that are manufactured for use in foreign countries, from the purview of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder." 

167. The Court on the above-mentioned submission sought for the view of the Department of Explosives. The Department has expressed the view that firecrackers that are to be sold in foreign countries may be excluded from the purview of the noise standards provided they conform to the rules for manufacturing the goods for export. They also submitted - "The firecrackers manufactured and sold for export purpose may be excluded from the purview of the firecrackers' noise standards provided they follow the rules for manufacturing of goods for export. This will enable the manufacturers to compete in the world market with the other suppliers of firecrackers. The firecrackers manufactured for export shall have a different colour code and a clear print indicating that they are not to be sold in India." 

168. We are inclined to agree with the view of the Department of Explosives. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured and bear higher noise levels subject to the following conditions: (i) The manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has an export order with him and not otherwise; (ii) The noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers should have a different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) The firecrackers should have a clear print on them stating that they are not to be sold in India. In case these firecrackers are found being sold in Indian territory, then the manufacturer and the dealer selling these goods should be held liable.

How to check/control noise pollution

169. The need for checking noise pollution as highlighted by the petitioners and several interveners deserves appreciation.

170. Need for specific legislation to control and prevent noise pollution still needs some emphasis. Undoubtedly, some laws have been enacted. Yet, compared with the legislation in developed countries India is still lagging behind in enacting adequate and scientific legislations. We need to have one simple but specific and detailed legislation dealing with several aspects referable to noise pollution and providing measures of control therefore. 

171. There is an equal need of developing mechanism and infrastructure for enforcement of the prevalent laws. Those who are entrusted with the task of enforcing laws directed towards controlling noise pollution, must be so trained as to acquire expertise in the matter of fighting against noise pollution by taking preventing and deterrent measures both. They need to be equipped with the requisite equipments such as audiometers as would help them in detecting the level of noise pollution more so when it crosses the permissible limits and the source thereof.

172. Above all, there is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in our country the people generally lack consciousness of the ill effects which noise pollution creates and how the society including they themselves stand to benefit by preventing generation and emission of noise pollution. The target area should be educational institutions and more particularly schools. The young children of impressionable age should be motivated to desist from playing with firecrackers, use of high sound producing equipments and instruments on festivals, religious and social functions, family get- togethers and celebrations etc. which cause noise pollution. Suitable chapters can be added into text-books which teach civic sense to the children and teach them how to be good and responsible citizen which would include learning by heart of various fundamental duties and that would obviously include learning not to create noise pollution and to prevent if generated by others. Holding of special talks and lectures can be organized in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children in preventing it. For these purposes the State must play its role by the support and cooperation of non-government organizations (NGOs) can also be enlisted.

173. Similar awareness needs to be created in police and civil administration by means of carrying out a special drive to make them understand the various measures to curb the problems and the laws on the subject. Resident Welfare Associations (RAWs), service clubs (such as Rotary International and Lions International) and societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local administration. Festival and ceremonies wherein the fireworks and crackers are customarily burst can be accompanied by earmarking a place and time wherein and when all the people can come together and witness or view a show of fireworks dispensing with the need of crackers being burst in the residential areas and that too which is done without any regard to timings. The manufacturers can be encouraged to make such fireworks as would display more the colours rather than make noise.

174. 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.

175. Preventive measures need to be directed more effectively at the source. To illustrate, the horns which if fitted with the automobiles would create hawking 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.

176. 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.

177. Prohibiting the sale of such firecrackers which create noise pollution by producing noise beyond permissible limits is practically unmanageable. A better option certainly is to prescribe the chemical contents and composition for each type of firecrackers to effectively curb noise pollution. The Chief Controller of Explosives has also been agreeable to take steps in this regard but has pointed out difficulties attributable to shortage of personnel and non- availability of lab facilities and requisite equipments for this purpose.

178. We hasten to add that during the course of the proceedings the parties have been generally agreeable to solicit directions on the lines as indicated hereinabove. There should be no difficulty in issuing directions and ensuring compliance to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Wherever there are difficulties they have to be sorted out in the larger public interest.

DIRECTIONS

179. It is hereby directed as under:-

I. Firecrackers

1. On a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of chemical composition, we feel that the latter method is more practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until replaced by a better system.

2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake necessary research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical formulae for each type or category or class of firecrackers. The DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers. 

3. The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two categories- (i) Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii) Colour/light emitting firecrackers. 

4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light emitting firecrackers. 

5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker mention details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention the details or in cases where the contents of the box do not match the chemical formulae as stated on the box, the manufacturer may be held liable. 

6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured bearing higher noise levels subject to the following conditions: (i) The manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has an export order with him and not otherwise;(ii) The noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers should have a different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) They must carry a declaration printed thereon something like 'not for sale in India' or 'only for export to country AB' and so on.

II. Loudspeakers

1. 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. 

2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night (between 10. 00 p.m. and 6.a.m.) except in public emergencies. 3. The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall not exceed by more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the boundary of the private place.

III. Vehicular Noise

No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential area except in exceptional circumstances.

IV. Awareness

1. There is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the text-books which teach civic sense to the children and youth at the initial/early level of education. Special talks and lectures be organised in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of the children and younger generation in preventing it. Police and civil administration should be trained to understand the various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on the subject. 

2. The State must play an active role in this process. Resident Welfare Associations, service Clubs and Societies engaged in preventing noise pollution as a part of their projects need to be encouraged and actively involved by the local administration. 

3. Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, need to be carried out.

The above said guidelines are issued in exercise of power conferred on this Court under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. These would remain in force until modified by this Court or superseded by an appropriate legislation. 

V Generally

1.The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipments as are found to be creating noise beyond the permissible limits.

2. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 makes provision for specifying ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones, categorization of the areas for the purpose of implementation of noise standards, authorizing the authorities for enforcement and achievement of laid down standards. The Central Government/State Governments shall take steps for laying down such standards and notifying the authorities where it has not already been done.

180. Though, the matters are closed consistently with the directions as above issued in public interest, there will be liberty of seeking further directions as and when required and in particular in the event of any difficulty arising in implementing the directions. 

181. The CWP, CA and all pending IAs be treated as disposed of.

182. Before parting, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of valuable assistance rendered by Shri Jitendra Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Narain, Advocate (and earlier by late Shri Pankaj Kalra, Advocate) who highlighted several relevant aspects of the issues before us and also helped in formulating the guidelines issued as above.