INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER AND ITS LEGAL CONTROL

Author(s): N. S. Kamboj
Source: Journal of the Indian Law Institute , April-June 1988, Vol. 30, No. 2 (April-
June 1988), pp. 204-224
Published by: Indian Law Institute

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43951166

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian Law Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Indian Law Institute

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER AND ITS LEGAL
CONTROL

I Introduction

WELFARE AND existence* of human race depends upon the equilibrium

between human activities and nature. But increasing activities of man in
modern society have accelerated their effects on natural atmosphere to such
an extent that it has created a problem of environmental pollution which has
become a serious challenge to the very existence of human life. Although
there are various factors responsible for such pollution yet noise is one of
the main polluters, causing various health hazards besides affecting the
normal working of people.
It is due to the advancement of science and technology that noise
has become an environmental problem all over the world. Noise resulting
from the use of vehicles, horns, industries, workshops, radios and loudspea-
ker, etc., has become a permanent feature of human life. This study is con-
fined only to noise due to use of loudspeaker.

II Loudspeaker and its effects on normal social life

Among all the sources of noise, loudspeaker has become the most
disturbing in the normal working of people. Its frequent use in jagratas ,
akhand paths , qawalies , kavi sammelans, musical nights, political and reli-
gious functions, marriage parties and advertisements, besides disturbing
normal life, has an adverse effect on studies of scholars specially during the
period of examinations. Its use has become so much a part of the prayer in
temples, mosques and gurdwaras,etc.9 that it has made it difficult for people
to enjoy their basic freedom with all human dignity.
in Effects on law and order

Sometimes the use of loudspeaker may create a problem of law and

order also and result in communal riots. Recently its misuse has been one
of the reasons in the Meerut communal riots which started in April 1987
and continued for several months. Originally it was an altarcation over a
loudspeaker which was being used by one community on the occasion of
jasuthan ceremony of a newly born son.1 Once again the problem aros
in the same city when a loudspeaker was used from religious places with
a view to instigating the people of one sect against another, throwing the city
into the flames of communal riots. The result was that a large number of

1. Nav Bharat Times (17 April 1987).

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 205

innocent persons lost their lives and property. To contr

an order under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr
issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Meerut.2 T
check the activities of anti-social elements, besides puttin
of loudspeaker which had created a problem of law and o

IV Effects on human health

Noise resulting from indiscriminate use of loudspeaker causes various

health hazards. These are :

(1) Loss of hearing

Generally 0 to 5 db (decible) is the minimum hearing limit for adults

while it can be perceived even at-5 (minus five) in case of children. How-
ever, in case of adults the average hearing is found to be 0 to lOdb. But a
loss of 0.3 db is caused every year in urban areas due to environmental noise
e.g., high pressure of sound of vehicles, loudspeakers (amplifiers), marriage
bands and disco-music, etc. A noise of 165 db of 0.004 second can cause
permanent hearing loss. Up to 80 db at speech frequency it can be tolerated,
but above this it is definitely harmful. This 10 per cent loss of hearing
takes place at the age of 30 years if one resides permanently in a noisy
area.3 Maximum permissible level of amplified sound is shown in table 1.

Table 1

Hertz 63 125 250 500 1000 4000 8000

Decible 103 96 91 87 83 81 79

(2) Heart rate, blood press

bances

Sound causes disturbanc

muli results in increase in
tion. There is a quantitati
voked, and the magnitude

2. Letter No. ST/ADM 'cityV8

3. Scott Brown, Diseases of the
4. J. Brod, "Haemodynamic
sion", in. J. Wills Hurst (ed.),
J.J. Combs, Jr., G.D.N. Bryan
mentally induced Alterations o
5. S.M. Grundy and A.C. Grif
Leproproteins and Cholesterol

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

observed that severe emotional stress by disturbance in sleep shows r

serum cholesterol level which is one of the risk factors in precipitat
coronary heart disease.® Even sudden emotional upset can lead to car
arrythimias in cases of coronary artery disease.

(3) An analysis of opinion survey of medical practitioners

An interview schedule 'Appendix A' was prepared for medical pra

tioners with a view to collecting their expert opinion about the health haz
resulting from indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. 15 medical practitio
of academic taste including distinguished physicians, cardiologists, E
and child specialists, were selected for this purpose. It was found th
of them were definite about the effects of noise on human health and nor
working.
A questionnaire was prepared to elicit their opinion about the effects
of noise of loudspeaker on various ailments mentioned therein. It is note-
worthy that all the 15 respondents unanimously exercised their option for
hearing ailment resulting from indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. Also,
that, (i) cardiovascular and psychological ailments, (//) speech defects,
and (iii) foetal disorders, are caused due to noise of loudspeaker was the
view of 12, 8 and a large number of medical practitioners, respectively.
Moreover sleeping disturbances, irregularity in metabolism, body-aches
are also its consequences. A summarised response of medical practitioners
has been set out in table 2.

Table 2

Distribution of the numbers of respondents and their response in connection with

various ailments caused by noise of loudspeaker

Name of ailment No. of respondent No . of respondents Total

naming ailment not exercising option

Hearing defect 15

Speech defect 8 7 1 5
Cardio- vascular 12 3 15
Physiological 11 4 15
Psychological 12 3 15
F°etal 9 6 15
Irregularity in metabolism 1 14 15
Body-aches and sleeping distur- 1 14 15
bances

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 207

The second part of the questionnaire contains a list of sev

which can be aggravated on account of the noise of louds
include tetanus, migraine, hypertension as unanimously poi
all medical practitioners. Besides 14 respondents confirmed
gory ailments like epilepsy, cardio-vascular disorders and sc
Furthermore to the question as to whether there was awarene
vision in medical-jurisprudence against noise, only 4 out of 1
answered in the affirmative, without having any specific referen
On the basis of information supplied in the questionnaire
that the problem of noise has also been discussed by the med
and the suggestion made that it must teach people about the effe
Further it may be noted that some respondents took enoug
against noise pollution in their clinics, by adopting measur
of posters, signboards and keeping their clinic away fro
Most of the medical practitioners opined that there must be
lation to curb the indiscriminate use of loudspeaker.

V Use of loudspeaker and amplifier in exercise of persona

Under article 19 of the Constitution, every citizen has been

the right to freedom including the right of speech and exp
larly article 25 provides for freedom of religion. Now the
as to how far loudspeaker can be used as a means to propag
under article 19 and his religious beliefs under article 25? N
190) guarantees six freedoms to every citizen but these have
to reasonable restrictions.6 Similarly right to freedom of rel
right to profess, practice and propagate) under article 25 has
subject to public order, morality, health and provisions of
Constitution.

In fact freedom of speech, expression and religion are in

one cannot be enjoyed without exercise of the other. If
to propagate his religious ideas as guaranteed under article 2
possible only through the exercise of right to freedom of speech
sion under article 19(1) {a) of the Constitution.
The controversial question as regards use of loudspeaker
of freedom of speech and expression, came up for consider
the Allahabad High Court in Rajni Kant v. State of U.P
that the use of mechanical instruments like loudspeaker and
covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech and expressio

6. The restrictions are : sovereignty and integrity of India, s

state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or mo
tion to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
7. À.T.R. 1958 All. 360.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
208 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

19(1) {a). A similar question was taken up by the Supreme Cour

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana .8 It was observed that th
propagate religion is not absolute. In this case the applicants we
permission to use loudspeaker under the Punjab Instrument
Noise Act 1956, which was challenged on the ground that it viola
19 and 25 of the Constitution but action of refusal was held not violative
of these articles.

Even before this decision of the Supreme Court, the controversial

question relating to use of loudspeaker for propagating religious ideas came
up before the Calcutta High Court in Masud Alam v. Commissioner of
Police * In this case the commissioner of police had banned its use for
calling azan five times a day. It was held that such use, causing disturbance
in the area, could not be justified on the ground that it was in connection
with religious purposes. The court relied on State of Bombay v. Narasu
Appa Mali 10 where it was observed :

[A] sharp distinction must be drawn between religious faith and

belief and religious practices. What the State protects is religious
faith and belief. If religious practices run counter to public order,
morality or health or a policy of social welfare upon which the
State has embarked, then the religious practices must give way
before the good of the people of the State as a whole.11

Therefore, public order, morality, health and other restrictions of part

III of the Constitution intend to control all the freedoms including the use
of loudspeaker for the good of the people. But among them public order
has been one of the main grounds of refusal to use loudspeaker as a means
of expression, as in Bedi Gurcharan Singh.12 In this case Sikhs were pro-
hibited the use of loudspeaker for holding dewan on particular days of the
Hindu mela of Bawan-dwadshi as it was necessary for maintaining peace
and harmony among different communities.
The test of public order has been laid down by the Supreme Court
in Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal.1* The court observed :

[W]hether an act affects law and order or public order... is: Does
it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so
as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect
merely an individual leaving the tranquallity of the society un-
turbed?14

8. (1975) Cri. L.J. 917.

9. (1954-55) 59 C.W.N. 293.
10. A.I.R. 1952 Bom. 84.
11. Id. at 86.
12. Supra note 8.
13. A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1656.
14. Id. at 1659.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 209

Similarly public health has also been another ground

use of loudspeaker. The question, as to how far the r
speaker, lies within the scope of public health, came up
before the Supreme Court in Stale of Rajasthan v.
court held :

It cannot be said that public health does not demand

of the use of such apparatus by day or by night or in th
of hospitals or schools or offices or habited loca
power to legislate in relation to public health includes
to regulate the use of amplifiers as producers of loud no
the right of such user, by the disregard of comfort o
gation to others, emerges as a manifest nuisance to th

The USA Supreme Court was of this view in its earl

restriction on loudspeaker was against the right to fre
But it differed in its later decision and held that reasona
amplifier does not violate constitutional rights.18
From the decisions of various courts it can be concluded that use
of loudspeaker and amplifier cannot be claimed as a matter of right under
article 190) (a) or 25. However, its use cannot be prohibited unless it creates
any problem to public order, morality, health or any other restrictions
mentioned under part III of the Constitution.

VI Loudspeaker noise as an interference in personal liberties

Personal liberty means a bundle of rights, very essential for the existence
of human life.X8a In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India19 the Supreme Court
pointed out that the word "personal liberty" does not mean only liberty
of the person but also liberty or rights attached to the person ( jus-person -
arum). A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed in A. V.
Cliafdet v. Delhi,20 that the expression "life and personal liberty"includes
a variety of rights which though not enumerated in part III of the Cons-
titution, and provided they are necessary for the full development of the
personality of the individual, can be included in the various aspects of liberty
of the individual. In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi?1 the
Supreme Court held that the right to "life" enshrined in article 21 cannot
be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than

15. A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 544.

16. Id. at 546-57.
17. Saria v. People of State of New York, (1948) 92 Law Ed. 1574 (B).
18. Koacs v. Cooper , (1940) 93 Law Ed. 513.
18a. See arts. 19 to 21 of the Constitution.
19. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
20. A.I.R. 1978 Del. 308 at 314.
21. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

just physical survival. The right is thus confined to the pr

of limb and faculty, but includes 'the right to live with human d
all that goes along with it.
A very important question, namely how far the violation of
necessary for enjoyment of life, caused by environmental pollu
within the scope of article 21, has been answered by the High
Andhra Pradesh in T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corprt
bad .22 It was observed :

[T]he enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed

by Art.21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and pre-
servation of nature's gifts without (which) life cannot be enjoyed.
There can be no reason why practice of violent extinguishment of
life alone should be regarded as violative of Art. 21 of the Constitu-
tion. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by
environmental pollution and spoilation should also be regarded
as amounting to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution.23

Freedom of the right to sleep, food, recreation, live peacefully, etc.,

can be said to be gifts of nature for mankind. It is true that these rights
have not been specifically mentioned as personal freedoms under any cons-
titutional provision, which are quite essential for the development of human
personality and enjoyment of life. If these freedoms are disturbed by in-
discriminate use of loudspeaker, their violation would certainly lie within
article 21 of the Constitution specially in those cases where licence for its use
has been granted directly by the state administration or indirectly through
its corporate bodies. In such circumstance the state should not be allowed
to run away from its responsibility if it fails to control the manner of use of
loudspeaker which ultimately results in violaťon of personal freedoms
besides causing a problein of environmental pollution through its noise.

VII Use of loudspeaker and its legislative control

It must be made clear that the problem of legislative control consists

of two parts, first permission for use of loudspeaker as a means of expres-
sion; and second, manner of its use which may result in violation of per-
sonal freedoms.

( 1) Permission for use of loudspeaker

Some legislative attempts to control the manner of using loud-

speaker can be summarised as follows :
(0 Punjab Instrument ( Control oj Noise) Act 1956 : The Act was
passed with a view to controlling noise including the use of loudspeaker.
Its constitutional validity was upheld by the Supreme Court in Bedi's case.24

22. A.I.R. 1987 A.P. 171.

23. Id. at 181.
24. Supra note 8.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 211

(//) Bombay Police Act 1951 : The Act conferred som

on the district magistrate and commissioner of police to m
to :

(/) licencing and playing of music, sound of horn and noisy ins
ment in street or public places; and
(zï) conduct, behaviour or action of person constituting assemb
and processions.
Certain rules of this Act were challenged before the Supreme C
in Himat Lai v. Police Commissioner25 on the ground that refusal o
mission to hold a public meeting with a direction to the applicant that "h
ing meeting with or without loudspeaker amounts to offence" was v
of article 19(1) ( b ) and (d) of the Constitution. It was said that sec
33(1) {o) of the Act, which enables the police commissioner to make
to regulate the assemblies and processions, is not violative of rights
that article. But rule 7 of section 33(1), which confers arbitrary po
on the commissioner without giving any guidance as to circumstan
which permission could be refused, was struck down as violatin
rights.
O'iï) U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 : The State of Uttar Pradesh de-
legated its legislative power to city boards under section 298 of this Act.
This section empowers them to make rules relating to health, safety and
convenience of the inhabitants of the municipal areas. Such rules of the
Allahabad municipality, which made it mandatory to secure permission
of the executive officer before playing of loudspeaker, were challenged before
the Allahabad High Court in Rajm Kant v. State ,î4 It was held that the
rules were valid and not violative of article 19(1) (o) of the Constitution.
In this context reference27 can be made to a government order issued
by the Additional Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the
use of loudspeaker. Under it the District Magistrate, Secretary or Exe-
cutive Officer of the Municipal Board, are empowered to grant permission
for use of loudspeaker. But very little has been said about the manner
of its use. The only condition mentioned under rule 2(5) is that it would
be used at minimum volume, but this seems to be quite inadequate to check
its indiscriminate use.

(2) Manner of use of loudspeaker

That part of the problem concerned with the manner of use of loud-
speaker needs still more discussion, since it is this which sometimes amounts
to indiscriminate use. Some important legislations in this regard may be
summarised as follows :
(i) Bihar Control oj Use and Play oj Loudspeaker Act 1955 : Section 3 of

25. 1973 Cr. L.J. 204.

26. Supra note 7.
27. No. 1 162/B/l l-Kha-853/68 dated 5 April 1969.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 212 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

this Act provides restrictions against the use and play of loudspe
reads

No person shall use and play a loudspeaker -

(j) Within such distance as may be prescribed from a hospital,
building in which there is telephone exchange, or
(//) Within such distance as may be prescribed from an
educational institution maintained, managed recognised or
controlled by the State Government or University established
under any law for the time being in force or a local
authority or admitted to such University or any hoste
maintained, managed, or recognised by such institution
or hostel in the use of students.
(») Ajmer Sound Amplifier' s Control Act 1953 ; This Act attempted
to control the use of sound of loudspeaker which was challenged in State
of Rajasthan v. G. CAmt'/a88 as ultra vires the state legislature. He respon-
dents were charged under the Act for misusing permission by use of loud-
speaker ir. such a manner as being audible beyond 30 yards and placing
it at a height of more than six feet. It was held by the Supreme Court that
legislation is within the powers conferred by entry no. 6 and conceivably
entry no.l of the State list. Therefore, it does not encroach upon the field
of entry no. 31 of the Union list though it incidentally touches it.
The Act shows how a check on the audible limit of loudspeaker can
can be made possible by way of fixing the height while placing it for use.
In fact it may be a useful guideline for controlling the noise of loudspeaker.

VIII Existing remedies

The following remedies are available against the indiscriminate use

of loudspeaker ;

(1) Law of torts

A civil remedy against the noise of loudspeaker can be sought under

the law of torts if it amounts to private or public nuisance.
(i') Private nuisance : It is an act which interferes materially with
the health, comfort or convenience of any individual as distinguished from
the public at large. It includes acts like a wrongful escape of smoke, smell,
fumes, gas, noise, water, filth, etc. Private nuisance cannot be made the
subject of indictment but may be a ground of civil action for damages or
injunction or both.
(h) Public nuisance : It is an act affecting the public at large or some
considerable portion of it, and it must interfere with rights which members
of a community might otherwise enjoy. It includes acts which, (a) seriously

28. Supra note 13.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 213

interfere with the health, safety, comfort or convenience of th

rally; or (6) tend to degrade public morals, e.g., carrying on tra
offensive smell or intolerable noises, etc. Generally it
rise to any civil action for a private person as it is meant on
of the public. However, if any private person wants to br
in respect of public nuisance, he must show, (i) particular in
beyond that which is suffered by the rest of the public; (»
to be direct; and {iii) such injury to be of substantial chara
Among all these requirements it is very difficult to est
reason is that people have different capacities of tolerance
A particular type or degree of noise, intolerable or nuisance
may not be so for another. Hence an action against noise c
to public nuisance unless affirmed by a considerable numb
Due to the aforesaid reasons remedy under public nuisa
private person against noise affecting public at large is very dif
is the case of an action brought by a considerable number of
public nuisance against any noise, as it may not be considere
each one of them due to their different capacities of toler
status. Thus cases of noise affecting the public at large
without any effective control making it difficult for the p
their freedom with all human dignity.

12) Indian Penal Code

Public nuisance has been made actionable under section 268, IPC.
It reads :

A person is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any,

common injury to the public in general who dwell or occupy
property in the vicinity or which must necessarily cause iryury,
obstruction, danger or annoyance to person who may have occa-
sion to use any public right.

(3) Criminal Procedure Code

Section 133, CrPC empowers the executive magistrates to pass such

orders as may be necessary for removal of the nuisance from any public
place. Such actions can be taken either on police report or otherwise
against any unlawful obstruction, conduct of trade, occupation, keeping
of any good or merchandise if injurious to the health or physical
comfort of the community.
Furthermore under section 144, CrPC executive magistrates can
issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. They

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

can pass ex parte orders for the purpose of preventing obstruction, an

or injury to any person lawfully employed, danger to human life,
safety, a disturbance of public tranquillity, a riot or an affray.
orders cannot remain in force for more than two months. If however
the state government considers it necessary for preventing, (/') danger to
human life, (ii) health, (iii) safety, (iv) riot, or (v) an affray, they can be
extended for six months.

A study of the aforesaid provisions thus shows that a civil remedy

against noise exists in both the cases of public and private nuisance while
criminal remedy against it can be sought only in case of public nuisance
as the noise has not been made an offence under private nuisance.

IX Duties of states and citizens

Some important duties have also been conferred on states and citizens
on the national and international level for maintaining natural environment
so that a healthy and peaceful atmosphere could be prepared for present
and future generations.

(1) International Conference on the Human Environment in 1972

For the first time the problem of human environment was taken up
at a universal level at Stockholm in 1972. It conferred some important
duties on the states as well as citizens to control the problem relating to
natural environment. It provides that, (/) man has the fundamental rights
to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment
of equality that permits a life of dignity and well being; and (ii) man bears
a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generations.

(2) Constitution of India

O') Article 47 lays down that the duty of the state is to, (a) raise the
level of nutrition and standard of living ; and (b) improve public health.
(ii) Article 51- A (g) confers such duty exclusively on citizens in order
to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
Since the problem of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker relates to
public health, standard of living and natural environment, etc., it lies within
these constitutional provisions.

X An analysis of empirical opinion survey

A study of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker would remain incom-

plete unless made empirically in context of the existing situation in India

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 215

society. Therefore an empirical survey against indiscrimina

speaker was conducted to elicit public opinion. A sample of 1
belonging to different occupations in the Muzaffarnagar c
for this purpose. It comprised 15 medical practitioners, 10
from, (i) legal practitioners, (ii) students, (iii) teachers, (iv
(v) servicemen, (vi) official (5 each from judiciary and admi
(vii) housewives, (viii) villagers, who often visited the city
workers. For this purpose an interview schedule2® was pr
general public with a view to eliciting their opinion on spec
The data collected through the interview schedule may
as follows :

A good number of respondents, viz. , 85 out of 100 condemned the conti-

nuous use of loudspeaker for a long time, while 9 respondents liked its use
and the remaining 6 did not exercise their option. A majority of respon-
dents also criticised the use of loudspeaker, (i) at the time of sickness, study,
sleep, high worries in mind; (ii) while children are preparing for examina-
tion; and (iii) in busy markets where it creates hindrances while talking with
customers (table 3).
Table 3

Response of the respondents against the use of loudspeaker for a long time

Use of loudspeaker at the time of Like Dislike Neutral Not Total

responded

Talking with customers 2 86 5 7 100

Children preparing for

examination - 92 2 6 100

Sickness 1 94 5 - 100

Sleeping hours 3 79 16 2 100

Studying hours 2 92 4 2 100
High worries in mind 6 82 9 3 100

Taking the objectivity into consideration

use of loudspeaker is liked at the time of marr
of any political party, advertisement and
akhand path and kirtan , etc . Most of the
of loudspeaker at the time of marriage, fes
While on the other hand, its use for politic
akhand path and kirtan , etc., has been condem

29. See Appendix B.

30. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Torts 451, 45

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
216 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

Table 4

Response of the respondents regarding the use of loudspeaker on different occasions

Use of loudspeaker on the Like Dislike Neutral Not Total

occasions of responded

Marriage 63 25 11 1 100

Birthday 55 30 12 3 100

Advertisement 32 43 22 3 100

Celebration of political party 32 45 21 2 100

Festival 62 29 9 - 100

Jagrata , akhand path and

etc . 25 66 9 - 100

Public meeting 33 40 22 5 100

Religious function 53 31 14 2 100

The table shows that 62 respondents lik

the time of festivals and 63 on marriage
attitude is seen as regards its use for jagra
with a majority of 66 respondents condem
respondents liked its use on such occasion
exercise their option.
The question was also asked as to how t
they come across a situation of indiscr
large number of 47 respondents stated tha
since, in their opinion, it enhances enmit
quarrelsome situation. Hence there is al
issue. Only 10 respondents ever tried to g
efforts. It was also noticed that the use of
day. 59 out of 100 respondents used it on
39 had never done so and the remaining k
Furthermore respondents expressed t
criminate use of loudspeaker specially wh
their examinations. A majority of 58 resp
off their loudspeaker if so asked during
37 opted to use it at the lowest pitch and t
on either side.
Several questions were also framed with a view to ascertaining the know-
ledge of the respondents as regards the existing legal measures against the
indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. It is remarkable that 52 respondents
were aware of such measures. »In spite of this only 13 respondents ever

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 217

made any complaint against such use, while the remain

once again, the plea that such complaints tend to affect
ultimately resulting in enmity with neighbours.
The vital issue before the respondents was whether t
effective legislation for controlling the indiscriminate u
A large number of 92 out of 100 respondents were in fa
strict legislation to control such use of loudspeaker.
asked about modus operandi of its control, only 16 favou
hibition of its use while 51 suggested control of its tim
vast majority of 78 respondents were interested that the
be controlled both during day and night.
It has also been pointed out by the respondents that
several hindrances in the way of implementation of such
indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. These are: (i) weakne
agencies; (ii) illiteracy; (iii) lack of awareness towards noi
degree of tolerance among the people.
One more remarkable feature of this survey is that m
pondents have appreciated the idea of introducing volunt
for controlling indiscriminate use of loudspeaker. In th
ganisations can play a vital role in propagating the haza
ces resulting from the noise of loudspeaker which wou
awareness among the people. A majority of 72 respo
their option in favour of such organisations. Similarly
was shown by the respondents for introducing mohalla sa
pose of controlling indiscriminate use of loudspeake
exercised their option in favour of the proposal. In fac
optimistic about the success of mohalla samitis.

XI Suggestions

It can be said that indiscriminate use of loudspea

a problem of the day throughout the country especially
Therefore, it has become necessary that this be control
legislation based at the national level. In this context th
important suggestions can be made :

(1) Creation of public awareness

It is undoubtedly true that any check on indiscrimin

speaker would not be possible unless awareness about the
is created among the people For this purpose volunt
medical associations and health departments can play a vi
use of posters and signboards for a wide propagation
effects of noise pollution created by loudspeaker. This c
tive, if made a part of the curriculum of school educatio
can also be created against the noise right from childhoo

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

(2) Noise-free zones

The problem of noise can be controlled to a great extent if

free zones are declared in such areas where peace is specially need
(./) Areas of noise-free zones : Such zones should be declared
schools, colleges, public libraries, hostels, hospitals, nursing hom
offices of public importance. The heads of above mentioned ins
and organisations may be declared responsible to supervise the
zones.

(//) Special magisterial powers for incharges : To make these nois

zones more effective, some special magisterial powers should be c
on such incharges, so that they can take action against the indisc
use of loudspeaker in their areas.
(iii) Compulsory deposits : To ensure a proper use of loud
it is necessary that some provision for depositing security amount ot
tax fee against its permission should be made compulsory. Incha
such noise-free zones should be authorised to realise the fine out o
deposits in case any misuse of loudspeaker is found in their are

(3) Creation of mohalla samitis

The problem of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker can be con
by mohalla samitis if created for this purpose. The permissio
of loudspeaker or its denial should not be made without the recomme
of these samitis. Besides, the samitis can also play a significant ro
areas for propagation of hazardous consequences resulting from
of loudspeaker. Some economic assistance should also be provided
so that they can meet their petty expenses incurred in posters
boards, etc., used for this purpose.

(4) Use of loudspeaker in religious affairs

As discussed above the use of loudspeaker cannot be claim

matter of right either under the right of speech and expression
religious freedom as mentioned in article 19 or 25 of the Const
Therefore, its use in religious places for the performance of pray
be strictly banned as this is intended to be a silent communication
Creator and its transformation into noisy fanfare is neither ar
necessary. Similarly use of loudspeaker in jagratas, akhand p
kirtans, etc., should be strictly banned because their use has beco
a source of nuisance than religious inspiration for the people of
The opinion of the majority of people in the above mentioned s
been found against its use on such occasions.

(5) Permitted use of loudspeaker

Majority of people in the above mentioned survey liked the

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 219

loudspeaker at the time of birthday, marriage and religious f

However such use should not be permitted unless the followi
are fulfilled :

(/) No permission for the use of loudspeaker in inhabited

be granted without the approval of the respective mohalla s
area.

(ii) The use of loudspeaker should be made in such a manner

it may not violate the freedoms of neighbours. For this purpose its tim
volume and height should be fixed in such a way that its sound may
audible beyond a certain limit.

(6) Remedy for a private person under public nuisance

The existing remedy for a private person in cases of public nui

should be made more easy because under the existing provisions of
nuisance if any remedy is sought he would have to establish that
was beyond that which is suffered by the rest of the public. This
be very difficult for him to prove in cases of noise because people may
as regards the very nature of noise due to different capacities of t
and social backgrounds. There may be cases when a particular type
of loudspeaker is alleged by a private person as public nuisance wh
may be liked by others. In such circumstances a private person
not be able to establish that comparatively he has suffered if others
sufferers at all. In this way his suit would fail.
Therefore, the above mentioned legal requirement to establish s
injury under public nuisance should not be made compulsory for a
person in cases of noise resulting from the use of loudspeaker.

(7) Remedy under private nuisance

A provision of criminal remedy against the noise of loudspeaker sho

also be made available if the same amounts to private nuisance.

(8) Offences made cognisable

Offences relating to noise of loudspeaker should also be made

nisable so that persons misusing the loudspeaker may be arrested w
warrant.

(9) Separate court constituted

A provision for constituting a separate court for the trial of offences

relating to noise of loudspeaker, should be made in this proposed legislation.
A study of indiscriminate use of loudspeaker thus reveals that its
noise is working as a slow poison for our present and future generations
besides causing a problem of environmental pollution. As this problem
is common to urban areas in different parts of the country, it has become

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

necessary that indiscriminate use of loudspeaker should be curbed fort

through effective legislation, based on a national level.
Although the matter about use of loudspeaker lies within entry 6
the State list which includes matters relating to public health, sanit
hospitals and dispensaries, yet the Central Government is also fully co
tent to pass such a legislation with a view to controlling its use on a na
level under article 246 read with entry 31 of the Union list whcih in
the matter relating to post and telegraphs, telephones, wireless, bro
casting and forms of communication.
If such legislation is passed it would be helpful in creating a bet
natural environment for the development of human personality and
ment of life. Moreover, it would also provide ample opportunities f
people to enjoy their freedoms with all its human dignity.

N. S. Kantboj*

♦LL.M., Lecturer, Department of Law, D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Muzaffarn

U.P.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 221

Appendix A

Questionnaire for medical practitioner

1. Does the noise of loudspeaker affect human h

2. Does its noise affect normal working (Yes/No)
3. Does it cause certain ailments (Yes/No)
4. If yes, how many of the following ailments :
(i) Hearing defect (Yes/No)
(ii) Speech defect (Yes/No)
(iii) Cardio-vascular (Yes/No)
(iv) Physiological (Yes/No)
(v) Psychological iYes/No)
(vi) Foetal (Yes/No)
(vii) Others (please mention) (Yes/No)
5. Does noise aggravate the symptoms of the followin
(i) Tetanus (Yes/No)
(ii) Epilepsy (Yes/No)
(iii) Migraine (Y es/No)
(iv) Hypertension (Yes/No)
(v) Schizophrenia (Yes/No)
(vi) Others (please mention)
6. In which diseases, you advice your p
such noise ?

7. Is there any provision in medical jurisprudence against noise ? (Yes/No)

8. Has such problem of noise ever been raised in your medical associa-
tion? (Yes/No)
9. If yes, what mea
10. Have you taken a
(A) If yes, what m
(B) If not, why
11. Your comments about noise

Name Age Sex

Medical Qualification

Specialisation

Duration of Practice

Place Date Signature

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

Appendix B

Questionnaire for ordinary person

Sir,

We are making a legal sudy of the noise resulting from the use of loud-
speaker in context of its effects on health and reaction against it among
the people. Several alternate answers* have been suggested against each
question. Please select any of them which you consider most appropriate.
1 . How do you like the use of loudspeaker if it is made for a long time
at the time of your normal working ?
2. How do you like the loud sound of loudspeaker under the following
circumstances :

(a) at the time you talk with customer

( b ) at the time of sleep
(c) at the time of study hours
(d) when your children prepare for examinations
( e ) when you are worried
(f) when any member of your family is sick
3. How do you like the loud sound of loudspeaker under the following
circumstances :

(a) at the time of marriage

(b) at the time of festival
(c) at the time of birthday
(d) at the time of advertisement
(e) at the time of meeting and victory of political parties
(/) at the time of jagrata, akhand path and kirtan, etc.,
(g) at the time of public meeting
4. In which of the following ways you reacted against the use of loud-
speaker, made during the night hours :
(a) I thought to get the loudspeaker switched off with the help of
neighbours but could not spare the time
( b ) I never paid any attention
( c ) I could not go to get it switched off as it develops hostile relations
id) It had no effect on me
(e) I made attempts to get it switched off
5. Have you ever used loudspeaker on the following occasions :
(a) akhand path, kirtan, jagran, etc.,
(b) Marriage ceremony

*The answers to question 1-3 are :

(/) Good (/'/) V. good (///) Bad (/v) V. bad (v) No effect.

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1988] INDISCRIMINATE USE OF LOUDSPEAKER 223

(c) Election victory

(d) Sale advertisement
(e) Never
6. If you are requested to switch off your loudspeaker on the plea that
examinations are going on, then what would be your reaction ?
(a) I shall switch it off
(b) I shall continue it
(c) I shall use it at lowest volume
7. Do you know about the existence of any legal provision for control-
ling the loud noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Such provision exists
(b) Such provision does not exist.
(c) Not known
8. If you know about the existence of the aforesaid provision, then in
which of the following ways you reacted against the noise of loudspeaker :
(a) I made a complaint
( b ) I never made any complaint
(c) I could not spare time for this
(d) It develops hostile relations
(e) I made a complaint but the officers never paid any attention
(/) I made a complaint and got the loudspeaker switched off

9. How would you like any strict legislation if passed for the control of
the noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Good
(b) Bad
(c) No effect

10. If you are in favour of strict legal control for the noise of loudspeaker,
then in which of the following ways would you prefer :
(a) By controlling the timings of its use
0 b ) By controlling its volume
(c) By putting an absolute ban on its use

11. In which of the following ways do you prefer a control on the use of
loudspeaker :
(a) During night hours only
(b) During day hours only
(c) During both night and day
12. What do you think about the success of such legislation, if enacted for
the strict control of the noise of the loudspeaker?
(a) No possibilities
(b) Minimum possibilities
(c) It would be more effective

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 30 : 2

13. Which of the following obstacles may come in the way of

implemention of such legislation :
(a) Illiterate society
( b ) Weakness of agencies responsible for the implementat
legislation
(c) Unlimited tolerance of the people about the noise
(rf) Lack of awareness among the people about the noise
14. Are you in favour of constituting the voluntary organisations for the
purpose of teaching persons about the hazardous consequences re-
sulting from the noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Yes
(b) Not too much
(c) No
15. Can such voluntary organisations be successful ?
(a) Yes
( b ) Not too much
(c) No
16. Are you in favour of constituting mohalla samitis for the purpose of
controlling the noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Yes
ib) Not too much
(c) No
17 Do you think that such mohalla samitis can be successful in control-
ling such noise of loudspeaker ?
(a) Yes
(b) Not too much
(c) No

Any special comments

Name Age Religion Occupation

Qualification Sex Place Date

This content downloaded from

13.234.254.191 on Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:20:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms