Does noise violate right to life? HC seeks clarification from state govt

MUTE STATE Bombay High Court asks state to ponder on silence zones

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday asked the Union and Maharashtra governments to clarify their stand as to whether noise pollution violates the right to life. This comes after the governments carried out certain amendments in the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, especially with respect to silence zones.

The clarification has been sought by a larger bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice Riyaz Chagla. The bench was hearing a few petitions that have challenged the amendments carried by the Union government in the Noise Pollution Rules.

According to these amendments, no area in the State can be considered as a silence zone unless notified by the government. These amendments were seen as a 'desperate' move of the government to bypass the August 2016 judgment of the HC that had held that any area within the 100-metres boundary of a school, court, hospital, religious place etc. would be silence zones. The judgment delivered by the division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Amjad Sayed had ruled that no loudspeakers or other equipment emitting noise, can be allowed in silence zones.

The Maharashtra government's Advocate General (AG) Ashutosh Kumbhkoni had last week declared that there are no silence zones in the state. The move was criticised by Justice Oka and he had said that the August 2016 judgment was still binding on the government unless it seeks modification of the same.

On Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh defended the Union government, saying that its intention was to grant some 'exclusive' powers to the state government and not to 'wipe out' all silence zones. He clarified that the Union government did not want to dilute the HC's ruling wherein it had held that noise pollution violates right to life. However, he also accepted that 'virtually' the government might have ended up diluting the right to life aspect of the ruling.

On the other hand, the petitioners argued that the Maharashtra government made these amendments only to appease certain sections before the Ganpati and Dahi Handi celebrations. They also argued that the Union had no powers to amend the said act unless it was in public interest. However, the ASG said that these amendments were in public interest.

Irked by the ASG's submission, Justice Oka said, “According to the amendments, no area unless specifically declared as a silence zone by the State government can be considered as a silence zone. Areas within 100 meters of hospitals, schools, even this High Court does not fall in the category of silence zones. We fail to understand as to on what basis can you make the argument of public interest?”

Justice Oka said, “According to the amendments, no area is a silence zone. Even this High Court does not fall in the category of silence zones.We fail to understand as to on what basis can you make the argument of public interest?”