CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA versus K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 30-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA 
A 
v. 
K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
AUGUST 30, 2000 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules thereunder-Rule 5-
Noise Pollution-Church using loudspeakers, drums and other musical 
instruments during prayers-Held, noise level to be controlled since no C 
religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace 
of others-Constitution of India-Articles 19(1), 25 and 26. 
Appellant-Church used loudspeakers, drums and other musical 
instruments during prayers. Respondent-Association made a complaint against 
the Church to State Pollution Control Board regarding noise pollution. D 
Complaints were also made to Poiice by the respondent Noise level surveys 
conducted by the Board in the vicinity of the appellant disclosed that the noise 
pollution was due to plying of vehicles on the road. Since no action were 
forthcoming from the authorities concerned, the respondent filed a petition 
before High Court for directing the authorities to take action for creating 
noise pollution. The High Court directed the authorities to take necessary E 
steps to bring down vehicle noise level and also directed the appellant to keep 
control of noise on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the High Court in 
another matter. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the survey reports F 
of the Pollution Control Board clearly attributed the noise pollution in the 
area to the vehicular traffic and not to the activities of the appellant; that the 
direction by the High Court to the appellant to reduce noise level is uncalled 
for; and that right to profess and practice Religion is protected under Articles 
25 and 26 of the Constitution of India which cannot be dislodged by directing 
the authorities to have a check on the appellant. 
G 
The respondents contended that the appellant has given religious colour 
to the cause of action; that the order of the High Court would not prejudice 
the right of religious practice of the appellant since the order is only with 
regard to reducing the noise pollution in the area; and that the High Court 
' 
15 
II 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A can pass orders to protect and preserve every fundamental right of citizens 
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. No religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by 
B disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through 
voice-amplifiers or beating of drums. In a civilized society in the name of 
religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children 
having their sleep in the early hours or during day time or other persons 
carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. Young babies in the 
C 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 there being any unnecessary disturbance 
by the neighbours. Similarly, old and 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 
D as children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible to noise. 
Their rights are also required to be honoured. [18-D-E) 
1.2. 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. Claiming a right 
E is unjustifiable. In these days, the problem of noise pollution has become more 
serious with the increasing trend towards industrialization, urbanization and 
modernization and is having many evil effects including danger to the health. 
It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, 
hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, 
F 
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. [18-G-H) 
G 
1.3. The direction given by the High Court t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.