Noise Pollution And Environmental Justice
Introduction
Noise pollution is the unwanted or harmful sound that adversely affects human health and the environment. It is often caused by:
Industrial activities and construction
Vehicular traffic
Loudspeakers, festivals, and public events
Airports and railway operations
Environmental justice ensures equitable protection of the environment and addresses environmental harm inflicted on vulnerable communities.
Relevant Legal Framework
1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Section 3: Empowered the government to protect the environment
Rules for noise standards were notified under this Act
2. Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
Ambient air noise limits:
Residential: 55 dB (day), 45 dB (night)
Industrial: 75 dB (day), 70 dB (night)
Regulations for loudspeakers, horns, construction noise
3. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 268: Public nuisance
Section 290: Punishment for public nuisance
4. Judicial Precedents
Courts have played a proactive role in enforcing noise regulations and environmental justice principles.
DETAILED CASE LAWS (6 CASES)
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) – Delhi Traffic Noise Case
FACTS
Noise levels from vehicles in Delhi exceeded permissible limits, causing health issues like hearing loss, stress, and sleep disturbance. M.C. Mehta filed a petition seeking regulation.
KEY ISSUES
Can vehicular noise be considered a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life)?
Responsibility of government to control ambient noise.
JUDGMENT
Supreme Court held that noise pollution directly impacts the right to life.
Directed Delhi government to install noise meters and restrict high-noise vehicles.
Ordered periodic monitoring of traffic noise.
IMPORTANCE
Established link between environmental harm and fundamental rights.
Recognized government accountability for noise control.
2. Noise Pollution Case – Shriram Foods v. State of Maharashtra (2003)
FACTS
A food processing unit was operating machinery exceeding industrial noise limits near a residential area.
KEY ISSUES
Liability of industries for exceeding prescribed noise limits
Enforcement of Noise Pollution Rules under the Environment Protection Act
JUDGMENT
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board issued directions for soundproofing and limited operating hours.
Court emphasized polluter pays principle and ordered strict compliance with noise regulations.
IMPORTANCE
Reinforced industrial accountability for noise pollution and public health protection.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1998) – Firecrackers and Religious Festivals Case
FACTS
Firecrackers during Diwali caused extreme noise levels, exceeding permissible limits, affecting children, elderly, and pets.
KEY ISSUES
Can cultural/religious practices be restricted in the interest of public health?
Balancing fundamental rights with environmental protection.
JUDGMENT
Supreme Court banned loud firecrackers in Delhi beyond 10 pm.
Directed states to implement noise limits for festivals.
Emphasized public health over unrestricted religious celebration.
IMPORTANCE
Recognized that environmental justice can override traditional practices when public health is at risk.
4. Society for Sound Environment v. Union of India (2002) – Loudspeaker Regulation Case
FACTS
Excessive use of loudspeakers in public spaces and religious places led to complaints from nearby residents.
KEY ISSUES
Authority of government to regulate sound in public spaces
Scope of enforcement under Noise Pollution Rules
JUDGMENT
Court held that loudspeaker usage should be regulated to avoid disturbance.
Permits required for amplified sound; timings restricted.
Violators liable under Section 5 of the Noise Rules and IPC Sections 268/290.
IMPORTANCE
Strengthened legal framework for noise regulation in public spaces.
5. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (2001) – Construction Noise Case
FACTS
Construction sites in Delhi caused noise beyond 75 dB during day hours, affecting residential areas.
KEY ISSUES
Responsibility of construction companies
Compliance with Noise Pollution Rules
JUDGMENT
Court mandated strict enforcement of construction-related noise limits.
Workers and equipment operators were directed to use soundproofing and mufflers.
Monitoring by Pollution Control Boards made compulsory.
IMPORTANCE
Highlighted corporate responsibility for environmental protection.
6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2005) – Aircraft Noise Case
FACTS
Noise from airplanes near residential zones in Delhi caused sleep disturbance and health problems.
KEY ISSUES
Accountability of aviation authorities
Enforcement of ambient noise standards
JUDGMENT
Court directed airports to limit flight timings over residential areas.
Noise abatement procedures were to be implemented for aircraft.
Reinforced principle of environmental justice for citizens.
IMPORTANCE
Extended noise pollution control to aviation and transport sectors.
Recognized citizens’ right to a healthy environment.
CHALLENGES IN NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL
Lack of continuous monitoring and enforcement
Resistance from industries, festival organizers, and religious institutions
Rapid urbanization and traffic growth
Limited public awareness on permissible noise levels
Difficulty in correlating health damage directly to noise
Courts have emphasized:
Precautionary principle: Preventive action against noise
Polluter pays principle: Offenders must bear cost of mitigation
Public participation: Citizens can approach courts under public interest litigation (PIL)
CONCLUSION
Noise pollution is not just an environmental concern but a public health and human rights issue. Judicial interventions in India have:
Linked noise pollution with fundamental right to life
Reinforced government and corporate accountability
Enabled regulation of cultural, industrial, and transportation noise sources
Strengthened environmental justice principles for urban and rural communities
RELATED Blog
comments