# Masroor Ahmad & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 500
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 43167 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/masroor-ahmad-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45606
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Permission
to
use
amplifiers
and
loudspeaker in religious place -refused not
only
for
noise
pollution-but
also
to
maintain peace and tranquility in the areaHigh Court should maintain social balancematter donot require any interference-W.P.
dismissed.

Cases cited:

## Text

500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A500

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 43167 of 2019

Masroor Ahmad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria, Sri Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Permission
to
use
amplifiers
and
loudspeaker in religious place -refused not
only
for
noise
pollution-but
also
to
maintain peace and tranquility in the areaHigh Court should maintain social balancematter donot require any interference-W.P.
dismissed.

Cases cited:

1.
Acharaya
Maharajshri
Narandraprasadji
Anandprasadji Maharaj Vs. State of Gujarat, 1975
(1) SCC 11

2. Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.
Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others,
2000 (7) SCC 282

3. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu,
AIR 2015 SCC 460

4. Sant Kumar and others Vs. Collector, Saharanpur
and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1664

5. Noise Pollution (V), IN RE, 2005 (8) SCC 796

6. Farad K. Vadia Vs. Union of India and others,
2009 (2) SCC 442
7. State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC
481

8. Ritesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 3823

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. &
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit
Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioners who are Muslims by
religion have preferred this petition for the
quashing of the order dated 12.06.2019
(wrongly mentioned as 21.06.2019 in the
petition) passed by respondent No.4 SubDivisional Magistrate, Shahganj, District
Jaunpur (wrongly mentioned as respondent
No.3 Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur in the
writ petition).

3. The aforesaid order disposes off the
representations of the petitioners filed pursuant
to
the
directions
of
the
Court
for
permission/renewal of the license to use
amplifiers and loudspeakers on religious places
on the ground that such use of sound
equipments is likely to cause animosity
between the two religious groups of the village
creating law and order situation.

4. The petitioner No.1 had moved
application before the authority concerned
for license/permission to use amplifiers
and loudspeakers on two Mosques, Masjid
Abu Bakar Siddiqui and Masjid Rahmani,
both situate in village Baddopur, Tehsil
Shahganj,
District
Jaunpur
for
the
purposes of Azaan for Namaz.

5. The petitioner No.1 was granted
permission by respondent No.4 SubDivisional
Magistrate,
Shahganj
on
15.01.2018 to use sound equipments as
2 All. Masroor Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
501
aforesaid on Masjid Abu Bakar Siddiqui,
Baddopur for the period from 15.01.2018
to
14.07.2018
for
specified
times
mentioned therein with certain conditions.
There is no permission on record with
regard to the use of amplifiers and
loudspeakers in respect of other mosque
i.e. Masjid Rahmani of Village Baddopur,
Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur.

6. It is alleged that at one point of
time, the said sound equipments had to be
removed from the said mosque for repairs
but when they were being refixed, the
local area police stopped the petitioner
No.1
from
reinstalling
the
same.
Accordingly, petitioner No.1 preferred
Writ Petition (C) No. 11840 of 2018
(Masroor Ahmad and others Vs. State of
U.P. and 5 others) and the same was
disposed off vide order dated 07.03.2019
with liberty to the petitioner to move an
application afresh for renewal of license to
use amplifiers and loudspeakers in the
mosque in accordance with law.

7. It is in consequence to the above
direction
and
the
fact
that
the
license/permission granted earlier to the
petitioner to use sound equipments at the
aforesaid mosque had expired that a
representation
was
submitted
on
16.03.2019 before respondent No.4. The
respondent No.4 called for a report from
the Circle Officer, Shahganj who vide his
report dated 09.05.2019 stated that a spot
inspection was carried out on 07.03.2019
wherein it was found that in the area of
both the mosques, there is a mixed
population of Hindus and Muslims. If any
party if allowed to use sound amplifiers,
the tension between the two groups would
escalate disturbing the peace in the area.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate along with
the C.O. had also visited the area and it
was found that on account of use of sound
amplifying system in the area, there is a
grave tension amongst the villagers
comprising of persons of both religious
groups of Hindus and Muslims. In the past
also, dispute on this score had taken a
serious turn. Therefore, in order to
maintain law and order and peace in the
area, it is appropriate not to grant
permission to any group to use sound
amplifying system on any religious place.
Accordingly, the license of the petitioners
cannot be renewed or extended and no
fresh permission can be granted.

8. In short, on the reading of the
aforesaid order, it becomes quite evident
that the petitioners have been refused
permission to use sound amplifying
system at the mosque not only for the
inherent reason of noise pollution but in
order to maintain peace and tranquillity in
the area.

9. It may not be out of context to
mention that people in India do not realise
that noise in itself is a sort of pollution.
They are not even fully conscious about its
ill effect on health though some concern is
being shown to it in recent past.

10.

On
the
other
hand,
internationally, especially in the U.S.A.,
England and such other countries, people
are very much conscious of the noise
pollution and as a matter of course do not
even blow horns of their cars and honking
is considered to be bad manners as it
causes not only inconvenience to others
but also pollutes the environment causing
hazards to health.

11. The Central Government in
exercise of powers under Sections 25 read
with Section 6 (2) and Section 3 (2) of the
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has
framed Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred
to as "Rules").

12. The aforesaid Rules apart from
placing restrictions on use of horns, sound
emitting equipments, loudspeakers, public
address system, etc., interalia categoriclly
lays down that loudspeakers or public
address systems shall not be used except
after obtaining written permission of the
authority.

13. From the aforesaid Rules, Rule 5
(1) of the Rules which is relevant for our
purpose is reproduced hereinbelow-:

"5. Restrictions on the use of
loud speakers / public address system and
sound producing instruments.-

(1) A loud speaker or a public
address system shall not be used except
after obtaining written permission from
the authority."

14. The authority competent to grant
permission is defined under Section 2 (c) of the
Rules to mean an include any authority or
officer authorized by the Central Government
or the State Government, as the case may be,
including the District Magistrate, Police
Commissioner, or any other officer not below
the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police.

15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid Rules,
no loudspeaker or public address system, in
short
any
sound
producing
instrument/equipment or amplifier can be used
in public place without the permission of the
authority concerned.

16. In the case at hand, petitioner No.1
was granted permission to use sound
equipments on the concerned mosque for a
limited period from 15.01.2018 to 14.07.2018
for specified time of the day with certain
conditions. This permission has not been
extended
or
renewed
thereafter.
Its
extension/renewal has been denied on account
of law and order situation.

17. It is not the case of the petitioners in
the entire writ petition that the installation of
such sound equipments is not likely to cause
any tension in the locality between the two
groups and that law and order situation does
not demand such refusal of permission.

18. The administrative authorities vested
with the responsibility of maintaining law and
order situation in any given area are duty
bound to fulfill their obligations and to ensure
that the tranquillity and peace of the area is not
disturbed and if there is any tension in relation
to any incident or dispute, the same be
reconciled and settled. Thus, they are obliged
to defuse tension and not to ensure that peace
prevails in the area.

19. The Fundamental Duties referred
to in Part IV-A of the Constitution of India
obliges every citizen which includes the
administrative officers as well inter-alia to
promote harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood amongst all the
people of the country irrespective of
religious linguistic or sectional diversities
and to ensure that practices derogatory to
the dignity of women are renounced.

20. The relevant part of Article 51A
of the Constitution of India is quoted
below-:

"51A. Fundamental duties It
shall be the duty of every citizen of India-:

a........

b........
2 All. Masroor Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
503

c........

d........

e. to promote harmony and the
spirit of common brotherhood amongst all
the people of India transcending religious,
linguistic
and
regional
or
sectional
diversities;
to
renounce
practices
derogatory to the dignity of women"

21. In view of the above provision,
every citizen of the country has to promote
harmony and the spirit of common
brotherhood and for that purpose it is
necessary that any action which tends to
disturb the harmony be checked and
nipped in the bud.

22. The petitioners submit that the
use of amplifiers and loudspeakers on the
mosques for 2 minutes 5 times a day
would neither cause noise pollution nor
would disturb the tranquillity of the area. It
is an essential part of their religious
practice and it has become necessary with
the increasing population to give call to
the people on amplifiers and loudspeakers
to come and pray.

23. It is true that one can practice,
profess
and
propagate
religion
as
guaranteed under Article 25 (1) of the
Constitution of India but the said right is
not an absolute right. The right under
Article 25 is a subject to the wider Article
19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and thus both
of them have to be read together and
construed harmoniously.

24. In Acharaya Maharajshri, the
Court in paragraph 30 has observed as
under-:

"No rights in an organized
society can be absolute. Enjoyment of
one's rights must be consistent with the
enjoyment of rights also by others. Where
in a free play of social forces it is not
possible to bring about a voluntary
harmony, the State has to step in to set
right the imbalance between competing
interests....."

25. The Court in paragraph 31 of the
said very judgment has further observed as
under-:

"A particular fundamental right
cannot exist in isolation in a watertight
compartment. One fundamental right of a
person may have to coexist in harmony
with the exercise of another fundamental
right by others and also with reasonable
and valid exercise of power by the State in
the light of the Directive Principles in the
interests of social welfare as a whole."

26. In Church of God, it was held
that the rights under Articles 25 and 26 of
the Constitution of India are subject to
public order, morality and health. No
religion prescribes or preaches that prayers
are required to be performed through voice
amplifiers or by beating of drums and if
there is such practice, it should not
adversely affect the rights of the others
including that of not being disturbed.

27. A similar view has been
expressed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy and
the right to manage religious affairs has
been held to be subject to other provisions
of Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

28. A Division Bench of this Court in
Sant Kumar and others held that right to
practice
one's
religion
freely
is
a
fundamental right under Article 25 of the
Constitution of India but the said right of
religion and right to privacy which is also
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a fundamental right has to be read together
and nobody has a right to practice religion
in a way so as to invade privacy of others.
The Court observing thus appealed to the
public at large to refrain from using
loudspeakers
for
various
religious
practices such as Akhand Ramayan,
Kirtan, etc. as it causes inconvenience to
public and creates noise pollution.

29. It may not be out of place to refer
to a Supreme Court decision in RE-:
Noise Pollution, wherein the Apex Court
expressed opinion that the fundamental
right of a person under Article 19 (1) of
the Constitution of India of freedom of
speech and expression are not absolute and
no one can claim fundamental right to
create noise by amplifying sound of his
speech with the help of loudspeakers as
every citizen has a fundamental right to
live in peace, comfort and quietness of his
house.

30. In Farad K. Vadia, it has been
observed that "necessity of silence",
"necessity of sleep", "process during sleep
and rest" are all biological necessities and
essentials for health and is part of human
rights as noise is injurious to health.

31. It is universally acceptable today
that noise adversely affects human health.
It causes hearing loss or deafness, high
blood pressure, depression, fatigue and
even annoyance. Excessive noise has
resulted in cardiac ailments, neurosis and
nerves breakdown.

32. It is a cardinal principle of a
exercise of equitable jurisdiction that the
High Court in such exercise should
maintain social balance by interfering
where necessary and refusing where it is
against social interest and public good.

33. In State of Maharashtra, it has
been observed that in exercising equity
jurisdiction in social interest, the Court
should weigh the pros and cons of
exercising the jurisdiction and to see
whether the interference would cause more
harmony to the society or its refusal.

34. In Ritesh Tiwari, the Court held
that the equitable jurisdiction may be
exercised to promote good faith and equity
and in the larger public interest.

35. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are of a clear opinion
that this matter does not require any
interference by us in exercise of our
extraordinary jurisdiction as otherwise it
may result in causing social imbalance.

36. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A504

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 46421 of 2006
Connected with
Writ C Cases No. 24748 of 2019 & 57082 of
2017

Chandra Prakash Sivhare ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Bhatia, Sri M.I. Farooqui, Sri
Archit Mandhyan, Sri Ashish Jaiswal

Counsel
for
the
Respondents: