Balwant Singh V.

Commissioner of Police

Facts of the case:

1. The appellant is a retired director general of police and is a resident of
Jaipur, Rajasthan. And to settle after retirement he built a house in a
locality near Vidhan Sabha.
2. The appellant to his misfortune noticed that very frequently,
thousands/hundreds of people belonging to political/non-political parties
would gather on the road approaching Vidhan Sabha, which is in front of
his house, with an agitated mood and would undertake their Protests
March or “Dharna” or “Procession” for expressing their grievances. The
protestors then would use extensive loudspeakers by erecting temporary
stages on the road and go on delivering speeches one after the other
throughout the day which sometimes used to continue for indefinite
periods regardless of time. Since there used to be a gathering of
thousands of people, the demonstrators would indiscriminately make use
of the compound walls of nearby houses including that of the appellant’s
house to ease themselves frequently at any time.
3. To regulate such events and to maintain law and order, state and police
administration used to put up barricades and allot hundreds of police
personnel for duty. These barricades are installed just in front of the
Appellant’s house gate and these police personnel would also use the
walls of residential houses including the appellant’s to ease. Residents of
that area are unhappy because, neither they are not in a position to stay
comfortably and peacefully inside their houses or do any work due to
constant noise pollution nor are they in a position to come out of their
houses due to constant fear of insecurity and restrictions put by the State.

4. The appellant was one of the most affected persons whose living in his
house had become impossible due to these activities and finding no
 solution to the problem faced, compelled him to first approach the
Commissioner of Police and make an oral complaint but finding that no
action was taken, filed a written complaint on 21.11.2011.
5. Since the Commissioner of Police did not take any action on the
complaint, the appellant, on 06.03.2012, filed a complaint before the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi under the
provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act). The NHRC forwarded the appellant’s complaint to
the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC) for taking
appropriate action in accordance with the law.
6. Despite the issuance of the aforementioned directions, the State did not
ensure its compliance and on the other hand, some miscreants attacked
the appellant's house and hence out of disgust, the appellant was
compelled to file a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan. A
single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan passed an order regarding
this matter but being aggrieved and not satisfied by that order appellant
and organisation Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound
Pollution filed PIL and came before the Supreme Court.

Judgment:
1. Taking into consideration gravity of the matter; Supreme Court has given
directions concerning use of firecrackers, use of loud speakers, vehicular
noise and awareness to be created for the same.
2. Court said that there is need for creating general awareness towards
hazardous effects of noise pollution. Special talks and lectures to be
organised in schools to highlight threat of noise pollution and role of
young generation for preventing it and state must play an active role in
this regard.
3. The States shall make provision for seizure and confiscation of
loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipment as are found to be
creating noise beyond the permissible limits. Rule 3 of the Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 makes provision for
specifying ambient air-quality standards in respect of noise for different
areas/zones, categorisation of the areas for the purpose of implementation
of noise standards, authorising the authorities for enforcement and
achievement of laid down standards. The Central Government/State
Governments shall take steps for laying down such standards and
notifying the authorities where it has not already been done.
4. Supreme Court, accordingly, direct the respondents to ensure strict
compliance of the directions contained in Para 174 to 178 of the
judgment of this Court in Noise Pollution (V), In Re – Implementation of
the Laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing
sound systems, and for ensuring its compliance, whatever remedial steps
which are required to be taken by the State and their concerned
department(s), the same be taken at the earliest to prevent/check the noise
pollution as directed in the aforesaid directions.
Rayney V. The state of western Australia
OUTCOME

The Supreme Court of Western Australia awarded Lloyd Rayney $2.6

million in damages in a defamation action against the State of
Western Australia for comments made by senior police officer, DSS
Lee, during a packed media conference following the discovery of
Rayney’s wife’s body.

Rayney was accused and subsequently acquitted of murdering his

wife. The Court reasoned that an ordinary reasonable person reading
between the lines of DSS Lee’s comments would come to the
conclusion that Rayney had murdered his wife which did not follow
logically from the information the police had at the time and that,
although there was a public interest in the matter, the defense of
qualified privilege did not apply because it does not extend to the
public receiving defamatory information. Mr. Rayney has since
appealed the amount of the damages awarded, requesting more.

FACTS
In August 2007, Corryn Rayney was found murdered in Kings Park,
Perth. Detective Senior Sergeant Jack Lee (“DSS Lee”) held a number
of press conferences where he discussed the ongoing police
investigation. On September 20, 2007, DSS Lee stated at one such
press conference, that the police department believed that Corryn
Rayney’s husband, Lloyd, was responsible for her death, stating that
he was the “only suspect at this time” and that “he is the primary
person of interest.” In 2010, DSS Lee repeated that Rayney was the
only and primary suspect and subsequently charged Rayney with
murder. In 2012, J. Brian Martin found in favor of Rayney and
acquitted him of all charges. The state attempted to appeal the
verdict, but the appeal was dismissed.

Rayney filed suit claiming that DSS Lee’s statements on September

20, 2007, construed in the context of words spoken by him at three
previous press conferences conveyed the defamatory imputation
that he had killed Corryn or acted in such a way as to give rise to a
reasonable suspicion that he had. Prior to the public accusations,
Rayney had successfully practiced as a barrister and operated in
various government agencies. He claimed that the public accusations
harmed his legal practice by damaging his reputation and caused him
substantial financial loss. In his action, he sought monetary damages
for the harm he claimed stemmed from DSS Lee’s statement. Under
the 1892 Police Act, the State of Western Australia can be held liable
for Lee’s actions.