Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. By the Judgment dated 1st of April, 1996, certain restrictions and conditions on the use of microphones in the State of West Bengal were imposed. One of the important conditions that was laid down was that there will be no user of any microphones between 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. except by the public authorities for discharging their emergent public duties and/or obligations and that the West Bengal Pollution Central Board was directed to maintain noise level register indicating the level of noise which could be permitted by use of microphones on any occasion or in any area. It was also directed that (i) The District Magistrate and other Officers would issue permission for use of microphone/loudspeaker subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, and (ii) the person or persons or any business houses dealing with or letting or parting with or selling microphones/loud-speakers, shall be bound to seal the volume of the noise level according to the directions of the Pollution Control Board before letting or parting with or selling such apparatus for any purpose and in default thereof, they should not be premitted to deal with such items. So far as use of microphones and/or loud-speakers by any religious society or at any religious function is concerned, it could be used solely for the purpose of communicating the speeches and religious teachings and tenets to the persons who have attended such functions and it should not be operated in such a manner so as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to any persons in the vicinity. So far as public meeting is concerned, the same was directed to be use in such a manner and with such a volume which could not exceed the level fixed up by the Pollution Control Board which should be treated as registered level and that the volume should be regulated in such a manner so that it may reach all persons who joined the meeting in a particular area but not beyond that particular area, and it should not be operated in such a manner so as to give reasonable cause of annoyance to the persons in the vicinity.

In this case on April 1, 1996 this Court passed an order in disposing of the writ application, inter alia, holding that Freedom of Speech and Expression of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be interfered with save and except in accordance with the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This Court held that public cannot he made captive audience or listeners by the use of Microphones after obtaining permission from the police and persons who arc otherwise unwilling to hear the sound and/or music or the communication made by the loudspeakers, but they are compelled to tolerate all these things against their will and at the cost of their health. This Court held further that if permission is granted to use microphones at a louder voice, such a course of action takes away the rights of a citizen to speak with others, the right to read or the right to know and the right to sleep and rest or to think any matter. It was held that a person and/or an organisation simpy applying a permission and after obtaining permission he is not entitled to display loud-speakers. It was held that even if a citizen is ill and even if such a sound may create adverse effect on his physical and mental condition, yet he is made a captive audience or listener to listen sound from microphones. It was observed that freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India includes by necessary implication, freedom not to listen and/or to remain silent. One cannot exercise his right at the cost and in total deprivation of others rights. A right cannot be conferred by the authorities concerned upon a person of a religious organisation to exercise their rights suspending and/or taking away the rights of others. It was also observed by this Court that it is well-settled that the right to propagate one's religion means the right to communicate a person's belief to another or to expose the tenets of that faith. The question is whether the right to practise or propogate religion includes the right to use loud-speakers and microphones for the purpose of chanting religious tenets or religious texts and/or the indiscriminate use of microphones or loud-speakers during the religious performance in the society. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to every citizen so that he may reach with the minds of willingness and not coerced unwillingness. There cannot be any dispute that sound is a known source of pollution. The adverse and ill effect of sound on human body is also known. It has a tremendous impact on the nerves system of human being. It was further held by this Court that it cannot be said that the religious teachers or the spiritual leaders who had laid down these tenets, had any way desired the use of microphones as a means of performance of religion. Undoubtedly, one can practise, profess and propagate religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, but that is not an absolute right. The provisions of Article 25 is subject to the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was held that on true and proper construction of the provisions of Article 25(1) of the Constitution read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot he said that a citizen should he coerced to hear anything which he does not like of which he does not require. Amplifier and microphone create tremendous noise and sounds which may travel at least half to one kilometre away. Having regard to the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot he said that the authorities can issue permission to use microphones without having any regard to the fundamental rights of the fellow citizens. Such authorities by granting permission to display microphones cannot make the public the captive listeners. The citizens have a right to enjoy their lives in the way they like, without violating any of the provisions of the law. A citizen has a right to leizure right to sleep, right not to hear and right to remain silent. He has also the right to read and speak with others. Use of microphones certainly takes away the right of the citizens to speak with others, their right to read or think or the right to sleep. There may he heart patients or patients suffering from nervous disorder and may be compelled to hear this serious impact of sound pollution which has had an adverse effect on them and it may create health problems.

The freedom of speech and expression of a citizen should not be interfered with save and except in accordance with the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is a matter to consider whether the public are captive audience or listeners when permission is given for using loud-speakers in public and the person who is otherwise unwilling to bear the sound and/or the music of the communication made by the loudspeakers, but he is compelled to tolerate all these things against his will and health. If permission is granted to use microphones at a louder voice, such a course of action takes away the rights of a citizen to speak with others, the right to read or the right to know and the right to sleep and rest or to think any matter. Can it be said that a person and/or an organization simply applying a permission and after obtaining permission is entitled to display loud-speakers from local authorities? Does it concern simply a law and order situation? Does it not generate sound pollution? Does it not affect the other known rights of a citizen? Even if a citizen is ill and even if such a sound may create adverse effect on his physical and mental condition, yet he is made a captive audience to listen.

(b) A common organisation;

(b) Designation by a distinctive name.

25. Article 2ft only confers rights to manage religious affairs by every religious denomination or section thereof. Supreme Court in the case of Durguh Committee v. Hussain, , held that the matters of religion in Article 26(4) includes even practises which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion. In order that the practises in question should be treated as a part of religion they must however, be regarded by the said religion as essential and integral part. Unless such practises are found to constitute an essential and integral part of a religion, their claim for protection under Article 26 cannot be accepted in other words, the protection must be confined to such religious practises as an essential and integral part of it and no other. In that case, it was also held that Christ sect of Muslim is a religious denomination. It cannot be said that Islam is a religious sect but it is one of the important religion in the world. It is not understood how learned Counsel could argue for protection in Article 26 of the Constitution, which is confined to religious denomination or sect thereof. In Hindu Religious Endowment v. Laxmindra Thirathaswamiar, , the Supreme Court held that the religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in matters of laying down the essential and integral part of the said religious organisation. The above case laws clearly lays down that a religious denomination is an entity within the main fold of a particular religion and in Acharya Jagdiswarananda Avadut's case , the Supreme Court held that Ananda Marg was founded upon the essence of Hindu philosophy and held that Ananda Murtiji had established Ananda Marg which held to be a collection of individuals who has a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being; they have a common organisation and collection of these individuals for a distinctive name and that is why it could be treated as a religious denomination within the Hindu religion. Accordingly, the concept of religious denomination could not be imported in this aspect of the matter and in case it was found to be a religious denomination in that event, according to the Supreme Court judgment in Hindu Religious Endowment's case every religious denomination of organisation enjoys complete autonomy to the matter of deciding as to what rites or ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and in such mutters no other authority can interfere. Article 26 docs not deal with the rights of an individual but deals with the rights of a religious denomination or section of a religious denomination. Therefore, what Article 26 does is to protect and safeguard collective rights in contradiction to individual rights safeguarded under Article 25 where the rights to religion is guaranteed. Accordingly, the contention that use of microphone is a practice developed by someone not by the Prophet or his main disciples and which was not there in the past and that the microphone of recent origin and accordingly it could not be said that the use of microphone and loud-speaker are essential and integral part of the religion. Azan is certainly an essential and integral part of Islam but use of microphone and loud-speakers are not an essential and an integral part thereof Microphone is a gift of technological ages, its adverse effect is well felt all over the world. It is not only a source of pollution but it is also a source which cause several health hazardous. Traditionally and according to the religious order, Azan has to be given by the Imam or the person in-charge of the Mosques through their own voice, this is sanctioned under the religious order. Right to religion by any stretch of imagination cannot be held, that in order to practise, profess and propagate, microphone has become an essential part of the religion. Azan is not a form of propagation but it is an essential and integral part of religion to meet at the prayer from a call being made through Azan.