CONTROL OF

NOISE POLLUTION

[MODULE IV]
20/03/2020
BY
DR. VEENA ROSHAN JOSE
 NOISE POLLUTION
➢ Sound that is unwanted or that disrupt the activity or balance of
human or animal life is called noise.
➢ When the effects of a sound are undesirable, it may be termed as
noise.
➢ Harmful effects on the environment, human beings and animals.
➢ Adverse effects of noise pollution on human health are both
psychological and physiological:
➢ Hearing loss or hearing impairment
➢ Rise in blood pressure
➢ Cardio-vascular health effects
➢ Increase in stress level
➢ Decrease in efficiency and concentration
 SOURCES OF NOISE POLLUTION
➢ Industrial Sources:
➢ Boiler, machinery, cutting machines, flour mills, etc.
➢ Pollution due to large machinery working at a high speed have high-
noise intensity.
➢ Non Industrial Sources:
➢ Loud speakers, automobiles, trains, aircrafts, construction works,
domestic noise such as from the TV, radio, mixer machines, etc.,
religious rituals, festivals, sirens, generators, etc.
➢ It can also be due to mining activities. Noise and vibrations are caused
by quarrying equipments, heavy earth movers, blasting and drilling
operations, etc.
➢ Noise is measured in decibels (dB)
➢ Noise pollution is excessively displeasing
➢ It disrupts the balance of human or animal life.
➢ Classified into outdoor noise & indoor noise.
➢ Undesirable noise is considered as nuisance. [Madhavi v. Thilakan
(1989) Cr.L.J.499] considered as an interference on one’s right to
freedom of speech, privacy and silence
➢ Undesirable noise is. [Rajni Kant v. State AIR 1958 All. 36]
➢ Petitioner, a political party leader challenged the validity of the
municipality by-laws under which he was not allowed to use a loud
speaker in a public meeting.
➢ Crt held that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and
expression, but does not guarantee the use of mechanical appliances
like loudspeakers and amplifiers.
 LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO CONTROL
NOISE POLLUTION
➢ Common Law Provisions - Nuisance
➢ Dhannalal v. Thakur Chittarshing [AIR 1959 M.P. 240] laid down the law in
relation to the noise pollution.
➢ Plaintiff’s house was just 8-9 feet away from the defendant’s flour mill.
Smoke, vibrations and noise of the mill interfered with their physical
comforts. Plaintiff alleged working of the flour mill caused great trouble to
the occupants of the house.
➢ M.P. HC held: The constant noise, if abnormal and unusual, can be
actionable if it interferes with another’s physical comfort.
➢ Radhey Shiam v. Gur Prasad Serma [AIR 1978 All 86]
➢ Abnormal noise produced by the flour-mill which materially impairs the
physical comforts of the occupants of the nearby house amounts to
actionable nuisance.
 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

➢ IPC Section 268- Public Nuisance

➢ Section 133 Cr.PC- Abatement of nuisance in ordinary cases.
Magistrates have been empowered to make conditional order
requiring the person causing nuisance to remove such nuisance.
➢ Section 144 Cr.P.C to address urgent Nuisance.
➢ Bijayananda Patra v. District Magistrate, Cuttack [AIR 2000 Ori. 70]
➢ Orissa HC declared all District Magistrates and SDMs should be
empowered to issue prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C
limiting the hours of loudspeakers in religious places and for other
social gatherings and functions.
➢ Section 2(a) of the Air Act, 1981- definition of ‘air pollutant’ includes
noise also.
➢ Section 6(2)(b) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Central
Govt. is given the power to make Rules to fix the maximum allowable
limits of concentration of various pollutants including noise.
➢ Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, noise is also
recognized as one of the pollutants.
➢ In 2000, the Government of India made Rules to control noise
pollution.
➢ The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
 THE NOISE POLLUTION (REGULATION AND
CONTROL) RULES, 2000
➢ Need of the hour for a law to regulate and control noise producing
sounds.
➢ Framed by the C.Govt. under the EPA, 1986.
➢ Objective - maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of
noise.
➢ Rules, 2000 – for preventing adverse impact on human health, including
harmful psychological effects.
➢ To reduce environmental noise pollution.
➢ The permissible levels of noise are different for different areas, such as
industrial, commercial, residential areas and silence zones (area within
the vicinity of hospitals, educational institutions or courts).
➢ Under Rule 4, State Govts. To categorise the area into industrial,
commercial, residential or silence zones.
➢ Duty of the State Govt. to take measures for the abatement of noise
including noise emanating from vehicular movements.
➢ All development authorities, local bodies and other authorities
concerned shall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution
as a parameter of quality of life.
➢ The objective is to maintain the ambient air quality standards in
respect of noise.
➢ Rule 5 – loudspeakers shall not be used except after obtaining
written permission from the authority.
➢ Loud speaker etc. shall not be used during night between 10:00 PM to
6:00 AM), except in closed premises such as auditoriums, community
halls, etc.
 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
➢ Noise Pollution v. Union of India [(2005)8 SCC 796]
➢ Arjun Gopal v. Union of India [(2017)1 SCC 412]
➢ P. A. Jacob v. Supt. of Police [AIR 1993 Ker.1]
➢ Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare
Assn.
➢ M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1996)8 SCC 462]
➢ Guruvayur Devaswam Managing Committee v. Supt. Of Police [AIR
1998 Ker. 122]
➢ V. Lakshmipathy v. State of Karnataka [AIR 1997 Kar 57]
 Thank You
For further clarifications, mail me at: veenaroshan@mpdnlu.ac.in