IMPACTS OF NOISE POLLUTION, MITIGATION MEASURES

AND CONCERNED LAWS

By
REHAN RAUF,
Advocate
M.A, LL.B, P.G.D.E.L
E-mail: RehanRauf1@yahoo.com
The noise is a slow agent of death. (Dr. kundenson) 1
INTRODUCTION
The word noise is of the Latin origin word nausea and means seasickness. Noise pollution and human-
created noise is harmful to health and life itself. Transportation vehicles are the worst offenders, with
aircraft, railroad stock, trucks, buses, automobiles, and motorcycles all are producing noise beyond the
human auditory stress. Construction equipment, e.g., jackhammers and bulldozers also produce substantial
quantity of noise pollution. Noise is displeasing to human and animal both it disrupts the human activity
and causes imbalance to animal life. In Pakistan vehicles and mechanical industries are the major
contributor to noise.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE
No express provision has been made for the prohibition and control of noise pollution in the
constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan, 1973 but a noise free environment has
been regarded a Fundamental Right of every citizen of Pakistan. This fundamental
right is contained in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and
was firstly interpreted in landmark case namely Shehla Zia and others vs. WAPDA,
PLD 1994 SC 693 in which the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that every citizen
has the right to unpolluted environment and clean atmosphere and court decided that
right to life means right to a particular quality of life.
NOISE POLLUTION
Some scientists have defined that as any audible acoustic energy adversely affecting the
physiological or psychological well being of the people is called noise. The term noise
is commonly used to describe in harmonious sounds which are disagreeable and
unpleasant produced by acoustic waves of random intensities and frequencies.
SOURCES OF NOISE POLLUTION
The known worldwide outdoor source of noise is transportation systems, including motor
vehicle noise, aircraft noise and rail noise.2 Poor urban planning may give rise to noise pollution, since
side-by-side industrial and residential buildings can result in noise pollution in the residential area and use
of amplifier in the mosques other than praying time.
Other sources of indoor and outdoor noise pollution are car hooters, emergency service sirens, factory
machinery, construction work, grounds keeping equipment, barking of dogs, humming lights, audio
entertainment installations in the streets and the paddler use of amplifiers for enchanting of ice creams,
vegetables, air firing and cracker explosions on the arrival of Barat.
EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
Effects are both health and behavioral in nature on human beings. The unwanted sound is
called noise. This unwanted sound can render damage to physiological and
psychological health. Noise pollution may cause hypertension, tinnitus, loss of
hearing, sleep disturbance and other displeasing effects. Furthermore, stress and
 hypertension are the main causes of health problems, whereas tinnitus can lead to
forgetfulness, severe depression and at times panic attacks. 3
Chronic exposure to noise may cause noise-induced loss of hearing. Senior males exposed to occupational
noise demonstrate significantly reduced hearing sensitivity than their non-exposed peers, though difference
in hearing sensitivity decrease with time and the two groups are indistinguishable by age 79.4 A comparison
of Maaban tribesmen, who were extraordinarily exposed to transportation or industrial noise, to a typical
U.S. population showed that continued exposure to moderately high levels of environmental noise
contributes to loss of hearing. High pitched noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects and
exposure to moderately high levels during a single eight hour interval causes a statistical rise of blood
pressure of five to ten points and an increase in stress and vasoconstriction leading to the increased blood
pressure noted above as well as to increased incidence of coronary artery disease.5
Noise pollution is also a cause of annoyance. A 2005 study by Spanish researchers found that in urban areas
households are willing to pay approximately four Euros per decibel per year for noise reduction.6
EFFECTS OF NOISE POLLUTION ACCORDING TO VIKAS VASHISHTH
The effects of noise pollution are multifaceted and inter-related. Though it is easy to show that excessive
noise could result into loss of hearing but it is difficult to show up to what extent the effects of noise can
prevail on individual. The effects of noise pollution on human mechanism could be physiological and
behavioral. The physiological effects of noise pollution may result into loss or impairment of hearing.
What makes a sound or noise unpleasant or irritating to the ear is a matter of psychology. So whether a
sound is regarded as a noise and how noisy it is depends also on who causes the noise and his relationship
with the person who hears it. The noises are recognized as major contributing factors in accelerating the
already existing tensions of modern living. 7
In U.S.A. 11 Million adults and 3 million children suffer from some form of hearing loss. 8
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Noise can have a detrimental effect on animals by causing stress, increasing risk of death by
changing the delicate balance in predator/prey detection and avoidance, and by
interfering with their use of sounds in communication especially in relation to
reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or
permanent loss of hearing.
An impact of noise on animal life is the reduction of usable habitat that noisy areas may cause, which in
the case of endangered species may be part of the path to extinction. Noise pollution has caused the death
of certain species of whales that beached themselves after being exposed to the loud sound of
military sonar. Noise also makes species communicate louder, which is called Lombard vocal response.
Scientists and researchers have conducted experiments that show whales' song length is longer when
submarine-detectors are on. If creatures don't "speak" loud enough, their voice will
be masked by anthropogenic sounds. These unheard voices might be warnings, finding of prey, or
preparations of net-bubbling. When one species begins speaking louder, it will mask other species' voice,
causing the whole ecosystem to eventually speak louder. 9
European Robins living in urban environments are more likely to sing at night in places with high levels of
noise pollution during the day, suggesting that they sing at night because it is quieter, and their message
can propagate through the environment more clearly. Interestingly, the same study showed that daytime
noise was a stronger predictor of nocturnal singing than night-time Light pollution, to which the
phenomenon is often attributed.
Zebra finches become less faithful to their partners when exposed to traffic noise. This could alter a
population's evolutionary trajectory by selecting traits, sapping resources normally devoted to other
activities and thus lead to profound genetic and evolutionary consequences. 10
GENERAL LAWS
Following are a few general laws governing noise pollution.
I. Pakistan Penal Code 1860 has two Sections dealing with noise pollution. Section 268
deals with Public Nuisance and Section 278 impose a fine of Rs.1500 on any person, who
voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of other
person in general.
II. Section 2 (1) (a) of the West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loud Speakers and
Sound Amplifiers Ordinance, 1965 describes that No person shall operate or use or cause
to be operated or use a loudspeaker or a sound amplifier in a public place, in a manner so as
to cause or to be likely to cause annoyance or injury to persons residing in any residential
locality.
III. The Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969
Following Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 are relevant to the topic.
Rule 154(2): No motor vehicle shall be fitted with horn giving a succession of different notes
or any other sound producing device playing unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming
noise.
Rule 155(1): Every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a device (hereinafter referred to a
silencer) which by means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as may
be reasonable and practicable the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape
of exhaust gases from the engine.
Rule 158: Every motor shall be so constructed and maintained as not to cause undue
production of noise when in motion.
Rule 226(1): No driver of motor vehicle driver shall sound the horn or other device for
giving audible warning with which the motor vehicle is equipped or shall cause or
allow any other person to do so continuously or to an extent beyond what is necessary
to ensure safety.
Rules 252: Except to avoid an imminent accident no person shall sound the horn or other
audible warning device of any motor vehicle within the limits of a stand, parking place
or cab-rank.
SPECIAL LAWS
Special law relating to prohibition of noise pollution in excess of National Environmental Quality Standards
is Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, (PEPA) 1997. Following are a few provisions of PEPA dealing
with noise.
I. Section 2(xxx) of PEPA defines as "Noise" means the intensity, duration and character
from all sources, and includes vibrations.
II. Section 11 of PEPA describes that “ No Person shall discharge or emit or allow to discharge
or emission of any effluent or waste or air pollutant or noise in an amount, concentration or
level which is in excess of the National Environmental Quality Standards.
 III. Section 15(1) declares "Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations
made there under, no person shall operate a motor vehicle from which air pollutants or noise
are being emitted in an amount, concentration or level which is in excess of the National
Environmental Quality Standards, or where applicable the standards established under clause
(g) of sub-section (1) of section 6".
CASE LAWS
Following are a few case laws relating to prohibition of noise pollution in Pakistan.
1. Anjum Irfan vs. LDA and others, PLD 2002 Lahore 555
In February 2001 the Lahore High Court appointed Dr. Parvez Hassan as
the amices curiae to assist the court in the Writ Petition, Anjum Irfan vs. LDA and
others. Dr. Parvez Hassan filed certain proposals for controlling Vehicular and other
Pollution in Lahore. And, on 14 June 2002 the Lahore High Court in its detailed
judgment, citing the Shehla Zia case, directed the government to frame rules and
regulations to ensure a strict implementation of the Pakistan Environmental Protection
Act, 1997, to combat the menace of Air, Water and Noise Pollution. The Court
suggested that new industries must be compelled to install devices used for checking
and controlling pollution. The court further suggested various measures for combating
pollution which included efficient utilization of solar energy, more implantation of
trees, introducing electric rail cars, the role of the media in creating awareness among
the masses and the proper coordination between the concerned departments.
2. Abdul Qayyum vs. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999 PLR 640
The petitioner, in this case filed a writ petition against the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) because of noise and other emissions from the industrial units in their
residential area. The petitioners have approached the EPA several times to control the
pollution by utilizing their power under PEPA but EPA failed to do so.
The Court while disposing of the petition held that the provisions of the PEPA do show
that the same are comprehensive and the agencies and authorities created under the
Act have also given the powers to lay down the necessary standards as also to enforce
the same by invoking penal provisions in accordance with law. While the EPA in its
comments has claimed that it has recommended shifting of industries, it is failing to
prosecute the offender in the event of its reaching the conclusion that the discharges
and emissions are not lawful or more than prescribed. Therefore, the court issued
a mandamusdirection to the EPA to deal with the matter in accordance with the
provisions of the PEPA.
3. Islamabad Chalets and Pir Sohawa Valley Villas, Suo Motu Case No. 13 of 2005
The Supreme Court took suo motu action in Islamabad Chalets and Pir Sohawa Valley
Villas, restraining the construction of the chalets and villas situated at a distance of 2
kilometers of the margala hills, where the housing scheme was launched. The housing
scheme in question would have a direct bearing on the eco-system of the margalla
hills and the overall environment of Islamabad, because of increased traffic,
congestion, noise pollution, diminishing greenery, annihilation of wildlife, unhygienic
conditions due to sewerage and frequent landslide due to loosening of soil and
removal of rocks.
4. Islam Hussain vs. City District Government Karachi, 2007 CLC Karachi 530.
 The Sindh High Court in this case directed the DIG traffic Police to ensure that no
smoke emitting vehicle or one causing noise pollution should ply the city
of Karachi after three months from the day the judgment was passed in 1997 and
further that strict action be taken against the offenders.
5. Islam din vs. Ghulam Muhammad, PLD 2004 SC 633
In this case the court restrained the defendant from creating public nuisance in their workshops
constructed on the commercial plots by declaring that the functioning of workshops had to prove to be
injurious of life, health and property of residents of the area. It was further held that a noise made in carrying
on of lawful trade under license, if injurious to physical comfort of community is a public nuisance.
6. Abdul Qayyum vs. Director General, Environmental Protection Agency, 1999 PLR 640
The petitioner, in this case filed a writ petition against the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) because of noise and other emissions from the industrial units in their
residential area. The petitioners have approached the EPA several times to control the
pollution by utilizing their power under PEPA but EPA failed to do so.
The Court while disposing of the petition held that the provisions of the PEPA do show
that the same are comprehensive and the agencies and authorities created under the
Act have also given the powers to lay down the necessary standards as also to enforce
the same by invoking penal provisions in accordance with law. While the EPA in its
comments has claimed that it has recommended shifting of industries, it is failing to
prosecute the offender in the event of its reaching the conclusion that the discharges
and emissions are not lawful or more than prescribed. Therefore, the court issued
a mandamusdirection to the EPA to deal with the matter in accordance with the
provisions of the PEPA.
7. Pollution of Environment Caused by Smoke, Emitting Vehicle, Traffic Muddle H.R. No. 4-
k of 1992, 1996 SCMR 543,
In this case the Supreme Court passed interim order for taking effective and remedial
measures in order to streamline the process of checking as a first step in eliminating
the air and noise pollution from Karachi.
In order to streamline the process of checking as first step in eliminating the pollution
caused by the smoke emitting vehicles, the following interim order was passed by the
Supreme Court: -
(a) A minimum of two mobile checking per week per district for at least 2-1/2 hour’s duration
should be arranged in terms of the earlier order, which is being practiced. Henceforth the
Honorary Magistrate appointed by the Provincial Government with the approval of the
Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh, be associated with the checking team and if S.T.Ms are
not available, the honorary magistrate shall try and dispose of summary cases at the time
of checking.
(b) The monthly schedule of the mobile checking shall be issued by the S.T.M. or any person
authorized by the commissioner without mentioning the checking location, which shall be
decided by the checking team at the time of starting the checking on that day.
(c) A weekly repot of such checking shall be issued by the S.T.M/ Honorary Magistrate to the
C.P.L.C., Central Reporting Cell, which shall compile the same and submit a consolidated
report with comments and suggestions to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Karachi
after every three months.
 (d) A report shows that M.T.C Government vehicles including Police vehicle and certain
“marked” private transport vehicles are not challaned. This discrimination should end and
all vehicles irrespective of their owner/driver should be brought to book in case they violate
the law. On query what is meant by “marked” transport private vehicle it was disclosed
that these vehicle bear a particular mark, inscription, insignia or certain word which are
understood by certain persons involved with the traffic checking and they just allow them
to pass without checking that they belong to influential persons. This is a deplorable
attitude. The authorities concerned are directed to check vehicles irrespective of fact
whether they are marked or not, but if this policy of not challaning marked vehicle persists,
the representative of C.P.L.C. associated with the checking team should note down the
number of such vehicle and report it to the C.P.L.C. reporting center which shall forward
it to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court, Karachi.
(e) Motor vehicle inspection Procedure should be totally overhauled and every week, D.I.G.,
shall obtain the particular of such vehicles to which fitness certificates have been issued by
Motor Vehicle Rules. And forward them to C.P.L.C., central Reporting Cell that shall
submit with comments to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Karachi, along with the
quarterly reports.
As regards Noise Pollution following interim order is passed.
(i) As required by the Motor Vehicle Ordinance the concerned authorities should ensure that
the motorcycle rickshaws are not allowed to ply without silencers. It has been pointed out
that there has been a practice in Karachi that the Silencers are not fitted in the motorcycle
rickshaws. Such practice, however, cannot override the provisions of the law, particularly
rules 155 and 158 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. In the existing circumstance, all the
persons owning or plying motorcycle rickshaws should be given one month’s time to get the
silencers fitted in their motor cycle rickshaws. A wide publicity should be made through
press, radio and television. Such notices should be displayed at public places. After expiry
of one-month action shall be taken against motorcycles rickshaws plying without silencers.
(ii) Many vehicles are found with fitted pressure horns or multi-tone horns giving unduly harsh
shrill loud or alarming voice. Rule 154 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 prohibits fitting
of such horns. The practice seems to be that such vehicles are challaned and pressure horn
are disconnected or seized by the police. However, in order to make it more effective
whenever any authority seizes such horn, it should deposit it with Central Nizarat situated
opposite civic center, Karachi.
8. Rafique Nasir vs. The State and 4 others, 2000 YLR 393
In this case heavy machines were being installed which were causing nuisance and creating tremors
and vibrations resulting in cracks in the walls of the residential houses adjacent to the workshop. Contention
that since the applicant was carrying on trade under license proceedings against him under section 133
Cr.P.C. were not maintainable was replied. Issuance of license did not authorize the licensee to cause
nuisance and trouble to the public. Magistrate under section 133 Cr.P.C. had the jurisdiction to regulate the
manner in which a trade was to be conducted in such a way as not to be nuisance to the community.
Applicant had carried on trade not only in violation of the conditions of the license issued to him, but had
also caused nuisance by installing hammer and machines which were causing heavy tremors and vibrations
resulting on cracks in the walls of the residential houses adjacent to the workshop. Operation of such
machines was injurious to human life and also for environment. Impugned concurrent orders of the two
Courts below did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and the same were upheld accordingly.
9. Arif and another vs. Jaffar Public School through Principal/Administrator and 8 others,
2002 MLD 1410
 In this case claim of the plaintiffs/applicants was that entire locality where their house
was situated, was leased out by the authority exclusively for residential purposes.
Lease agreement showed the properties given on lease would be used for residential
purposes only and would not be converted to other use and in case of breach, lessor
would be entitled to forfeit lease and to resume property. Defendants/ respondents
started school in a house which was opposite to the house of applicants which had
created a nuisance for applicants and other residents of the locality. Use of residential
house for running a school therein was an act which was not only breach of express
terms of lease, but also was a patent illegality. Plaintiffs had served a notice on
defendants/respondents calling upon them not to venture for opening of school and
had been prompt in their action against the respondents. Opening of any number of
school in other residential bungalows, would not furnish any justification for
perpetuating illegality committed by respondents in starting school in their residential
house because two wrongs would not make one right. Plaintiffs, in circumstances, had
succeeded in making out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction as
balance of convenience was in their favor and they would suffer an irreparable loss
and injury in case injunction was refused to them. Application for grant of interim
injunction was allowed in circumstances.
10. Salamat Ali vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, 1997 MLD 2122
In this case chilly grinding machine and rice husking machines were being operated by the petitioner
in a densely populated area where it could be difficult even to take breath and the vibration caused by the
machines was a source of nuisance. Operation of the two said machines had, thus, been rightly stopped by
the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order which did not suffer from any illegality. Constitutional
petition was dismissed in limine in circumstances.
11. Haji Hafeezudin and others vs. LUCAS Service Pakistan LTD, PLD 2000 Karachi 58
In this case respondent/defendant was installing a plant in premises in question along with a
powerful generator in a commercial area, which prima facie, seemed to be in violation of zoning laws.
Applicants/plaintiffs, in circumstance, had made out a reasonable prima facie case for the grant of
injunction. Damage cause by potential nuisance value of the generator in question could not be quantified.
Balance of convenience was also in favor of granting injunction rather than rejecting same. High Court
allowed application for grant of interim injunction and respondent/defendant was restrained from installing
the proposed filter assembly plant and generator within premises in question till disposal of suit.
INDIAN LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
Following are a few leading Indian judgments on prohibition of noise pollution.
Ajeet Mehta vs. State of Rajisthan, 1990 CR.L.J 1596
In this case the Rajisthan high Court observed:
"If one works for his own benefits and causes any inconvenience to others, he would not be excused.
Whatever be the nature of nuisance, be that as it is, a trivial or major, the individual's freedom and
liberty cannot be compromised by any other person except in according with law. If one works for
gain and causes discomfort to any individual that cannot ne countenanced. "
The High Court upheld the Magistrate's order and strongly felt that public health cannot be allowed to suffer
on account of personal business of any individual. The petition was allowed and the view taken by the
Additional Session Judge reversed.
Mahdavi vs. Thalakan, 1989 CR.L.J 499
In this case, the court projected the importance of the value of environmental protection for the mankind
by making the following observation:
"The right to life is far more than right to animal existence. Personal autonomy, free `from intrusion
and appropriation is thus a constitutional reality. The right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and
the right to repose and health are part of the right to live. We recognize every man's home to be his
castle which cannot be invaded by toxic fumes and tormenting sounds. The principles expressed
through law and culture consistent with nature's ground rules for existence had been recognized in
section 133(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. The conduct of any trade or occupation or keeping of any goods or
merchandise injurious to health or physical comfort of community could be regulated or prohibited
under this section.
Mukul Ray vs. The State and others, AIR 1999 CALCUTTA 293
In this writ petition the petitioner who is the General secretary of All India Trinamul Congress prays for
cancelling the elections programme of the elections to the Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad and also to the
Panchayat Samities and the Gram Panchayats within the jurisdiction of the said Mahakuma Parishad in the
District of Darjeeling scheduled to be held on 18-04-1999 or for rescheduling the Madhyamik and Higher
Secondary Examinations programmes, and alternatively for making suitable relaxation of the bar use on
loudspeaker and microphone during the period covered by the said examinations with a view to facilitating
making of election campaigns. The Madhyamik examination commenced on and from 04-03-1999 and the
Higher Secondary examination commenced on 26-03-1999 and will continue up to 19-04-1999.
Mr. Panja appearing on the behalf of the petitioner submits that immediately on receipt of the tentative
election programme issued by the state Election Commission on 03-03-1999 the petitioner wrote to the
Commission on 05-03-1999 to fix another programme for the elections so that the election programme may
not coincide with the programmes of Madhyamaik and Higher Secondary examination already announced
a few months back and thereby facilitate use of loudspeaker/microphone for election propaganda. His
grievance is that without paying any heed to the objection raised by the petitioner the Department of
Panchayat and R.D. issued the notification dated 12-03-1999 fixing 18-04-1999 as the date of the said
election and Election Commission in turn issued a letter on the same date forwarding therewith the Model
Code of Conduct required to be maintained by all political parties and candidates in connection with the
said elections. The said Model Code refers to restrictions about use of loudspeaker and inter alia requires
compliance of the extent orders of the Court in this regard.
The Court by its order dated 20-11-1997 passed in C.O. No. 4303(W) of 1996 imposed a ban on the use of
boxes or amplifier in open air function during the period commencing from 15 days prior to the important
examinations like Secondary, Higher Secondary, Delhi Board, etc. examination till such examinations are
over. This total ban on the use of microphone during examination period was virtually reiterated in the
subsequent order dated 04-03-1998. In the still later order dated 11-08-1998 open air cultural programmes,
subject to certain terms and conditions, were allowed to be performed except in residential areas or areas
where educational institutes are situated during the period commencing from at least three days before
commencement and till completion of Board/Council Examinations.
It has been the consistent submission of all the learned Advocates of the case that the elections process has
already commenced and there is no scope or question of deferring the elections at this stage. It is also the
consistent submission of all of them that there is also no question of deferring the Council examinations
which have already been scheduled.
However, having regard to the situation obtaining in this matter the Court directed that while there
will be total ban on the use of microphone in any residential area or mixed residential area and within half
a kilometer of such area during the period covered by the examination schedules, microphone fitted with
sound limiter may however be used for the purpose of election propaganda outside such area only from 5
p.m to 7 p.m but maintaining a sound level not exceeding 45 db. and not affecting any silence zone. The
relaxation allowed by this order will be applicable only to rural areas within the jurisdiction of the Siliguri
Mahakuma Parishad during the ensuing Panchayat elections there. Prior permission of the concerned
authority will however have to be taken as required under law for making use of microphone. The benefit
as well as the restriction of this order will be equally applicable to all political parties and candidates taking
part in the said elections and any violation of the same will be amount to the violation of the Model Code
of Conduct and entail consequences accordingly.
Moulana Mufti Syed Mohammad Noorur Rehman Barkati and others vs. State of West Bengal and
others, AIR 1999 CALCUTTA 15
In this case, writ petition was filed by Moulana Mufti Syed Muhammad Noorur Rehman
Barkati, Imam and Khatib Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid, Dharamatala and Chairman
Gharib Nawaz Educational And Charitable Society, Calcutta and eight others for a
declaration that Rule 3 of the Environmental (Protection) Rules 1986 vis a vis
Schedule III of the said Rule do not apply in case of Mosques more particularly at the
time of call of Azan from the Mosques and for the further declaration that Schedule
III of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 25 of
the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for withdrawal of all conditions and
restrictions which were notified by the Police and other authorities pursuant to the
order passed in the case on Om Birangana Religious Society Vs. State, reported in
100 CWN 617.
By the judgment dated 1st of April, 1996, certain restrictions and conditions on the use of
microphones in the state of West Bangal 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 Bangal 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.
After hearing contentions of the parties Court declared that 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. 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 causes several health hazards. 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. Azan is not a form of propagation but it is an
essential and integral part of religion to meet at prayer from a call being made through Azan.
Furthermore, use of microphone is not an integral of Azan and/or necessary for making Azan
effective. Azan is there and will be there. But simply because microphones has been
invented and ultimately it is found that it is one of the major source of sound pollution
and it effects the fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution and making the citizens captive listeners, suspending all their
fundamental and legal rights. None can claim an absolute right to suspend other rights
or it can disturb other basic human rights and fundamental rights to sleep and leisure.
The argument that Environmental (Protection) Act, Rules and the Schedule therein
are ultra vires under Articles 14 and 25 is wholly misconceived as it had
not resulted any discrimination and so far as Sound Pollution is concerned, citizens
have a right to be protected against excessive sound under Article 19 (I) (a) of the
Constitution. The restrictions on the use of the microphone as imposed by the Court,
Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board have to be
carried out by all concern at any cost. Simply because no such formal restrictions have
been imposed in other parts of India and the fundamental rights under Article 19 (I)
 (a) is enforced strictly in the State of West Bangal and it is not enforced in other parts
of India that does not amount to any case of any discrimination. Accordingly, in our
view, the petition is misconceived and has no merit at all. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
INTERNATIONAL LAWS
These are two leading cases on prohibition of Noise Pollution.
I. Gatwick case
II. Church bell case
MITIGATION AND CONTROL
There are a variety of strategies for mitigating roadway noise including: use of noise barriers, limitation of
vehicle speeds, alteration of roadway surface texture, limitation of heavy vehicles, use of traffic controls
that smooth vehicle flow to reduce braking and acceleration, and tire design. An important factor in applying
these strategies is a computer model for roadway noise, which is capable of addressing
local topography, meteorology, traffic operations and hypothetical mitigation. Costs of building-in
mitigation can be modest, provided these solutions are sought in the planning stage of a roadway
project. Aircraft noise can be reduced to some extent by design of quieter jet engines, which was pursued
vigorously in the 1970s and 1980s. This strategy has brought limited but noticeable reduction in urban
sound levels. Reconsideration of operations, such as altering flight paths and time of day runway use, has
demonstrated benefits for residential populations near airports.
EPITOME
To sum it up, I would say that Noise has become a very important “stress factor” in the environment of
man. Noise has many effects on exposed population. The blood pressure can increase during exposure to
noise and a number of pituitary hormones are affected by noise. The adverse behavioral effects of noise
include annoyance, interference with performance and efficiency, interference with communication and
fatigue. High noise levels are associated with higher accident rates. There is positive association of noise
with increased risk of threatened or spontaneous abortion, pregnancy induced hypertension, abnormal labor
and low birth weight. A number of temporary physiological changes occur in human body as a direct result
of noise exposure. The noise contributes and aggravates tension in related disease such as stomach ulcer,
neurosis and mental illness to allergies and cardinals and circulatory factors in accelerating the already
present tensions of modern living.11
REFERENCES
1. ILL, Legal Control of Environmental Pollution 204 (1980)
2. Senate Public Works Committee, Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972, S. Rep. No. 1160,
92nd Cong. 2nd session

3. J.M. Field, Effect of personal and situational variables upon noise annoyance in
residential areas, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93: 2753-2763 (1993).

4. Rosenhall U, Pedersen K, Svanborg A (1990). "Presbycusis and noise-induced hearing

loss". Ear Hear 11 (4): 257–63.

5. S. Rosen and P. Olin, Hearing Loss and Coronary Heart Disease, Archives
of Otolaryngology, 82:236 (1965).
6. Jesús Barreiro, Mercedes Sánchez, Montserrat Viladrich-Grau (2005), "How much are
people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study", Applied Economics,
37 (11)

7. Vikas Vashishth, "Law & Practice of Environmental Laws in India" P.658

8. Bromer, Noise Pollution: A Growing Menance, Saturday Review, May 27, 1967 at
17, Quoted in ILI Legal Control of Environment Pollution, 1980 at P. 202

9. Bahamas Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15–16 March 2000

10. (Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007). "Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing
in urban robins." Biology Letters 3 (4): 368–70)
Bell, Noise: An Occupational Hazard and public nuisance 34 (1966)