Madras High Court
Kawth Ali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2012
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 27.03.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.44953 of 2002 Kawth Ali ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary to Government Home Department Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City. 4. The Inspector of Police Pettai Police Station Tirunelveli 4 .... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.675/Kawth Ali/2002 dated 30.8.2002 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to propagate about the meeting with cone speakers in auto rickshaws, to hold a public religious meeting with loud speakers and cone speakers at Mallimal Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli 4 on any date fixed by this court. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Abdullah For Respondents : Mr.Lakshmi Narayan, Govt. Advocate (R1 to R4) O R D E R
The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.675/Kawth Ali/2002 dated 30.8.2002 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to propagate about the meeting with cone speakers in auto rickshaws, to hold a public religious meeting with loud speakers and cone speakers at Mallimal Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli 4 on any date fixed by this court.
2. On 23.8.2002 the petitioner gave an application to the Assistant Commissioner for conducting a public religious meeting and that application was rejected stating that there is a possibility of law and order problem and communal disturbance due to difference of views and opinions among the Muslim community and the three Muslim Zamaths of Tirunelveli. Challenging the same, the writ petition was fled. At this point of time, the relief sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous, as the application made for holding the meeting is dated 23.8.2002 which date is already over.
3. In this case, anticipating the law and order problem based on divergence of views on religious grounds, the authority has rightly rejected the application.
4. The noise pollution caused by cone speakers and its deleterious effect on public has been emphasised by K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J., in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.34449 of 2002 dated 28.2.2003. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment, which is relevant to reemphasis for the present scenario is set out hereunder:-
" 20. While parting with this case, I am also inclined to caution the petitioners as well as such regligious enthusiasts/ fundamentalists, to practice their respective faith in a cultured way and not to resort to aggressive or unfair methods and resorting to a method of worship which is inhuman. God, to whichever religion He belongs to, is said to be present everywhere and does not require a blaring and deafening amplifier to hear the prayer of his devotees. The nature of evil and adverse effects which noise pollution causes to the children, aged, sickly, pregnant women and even normal individuals and how it disturbs the student community etc., have been repeatedly emphasised with scientific facts and figures, any number of times in newspapers, magazines, health journals and other media. Whether any individual has a legal or fundamental right to affect the body and mind of another person has been dealt with in detail by the Division Bench in Apparao's case and by the Supreme Court in the very appeal by the petitioner and there is no need to repeat them. Suffice it to say that religious faith existed and flourished in the past during several centuries in a better manner without the aid of amplifiers or other gadjets which have come into being only during the past few years. Belief in religion is and should remain a private and personal affair. When it crosses the four walls of the house or the place of worship and becomes a public issue, it is the singular most factor and root cause for all the violence, extremism, terrorism and strife we are now witnessing, national and international. The amplifiers probably signify the growing trend of intolerance between different groups. Religion is not a trade requiring advertisement by amplifiers. It is a pity that the police as well as the Pollution Control authorities are yet to strictly implement the rules and regulations in spite of repeated directions by the Court and the Government. There is no impediment to enforce them provided the enforcement is carried out impartially and uniformly. Marriage halls also have become noisy with music parties forcing the invitees to run away at the earliest. Music and melody which should be soothening, instead make the audience frightened and terror stricken. It is paradoxical to claim that we are becoming more and more civilised and at the same time we indulge in such acts which are most uncivilised. Even animals run away from noisy areas. Not only animals in forests but also in zoos are protected from noise pollution because they cannot survive in noisy atmosphere. Motorists passing through the forest and protected areas are warned against using the horn and the visitors to the zoo are directed to pass through silently. Why should we human beings reduce ourselves to less than animals, is the question which the petitioners and their counterparts in other religions should address themselves."
5. The relief sought for by the petitioner is also totally misconceived as the use of cone speakers will not be in public interest. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.
27.3.2012 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No krr To
1. The Secretary to Government Home Department Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City.
4. The Inspector of Police Pettai Police Station Tirunelveli 4 R.SUDHAKAR,J.
Krr/ W.P.No.44953 of 2002 DATED:- 27-03-2012