AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Dandapani, J.—Two counsel, counsel the cause of civil Courts in Tirur.
They project the helplessness of the Courts against the staging of the Dharna, procession and other modes of agitations in front of the gate of the Court, which also happens to be the open space leading to the officers of the Sub Treasury, Sub Registry and the Sub Jail, apart from the busy Tirur Railway Station. They state that the agitations by different political parties being held in that open space with sound amplifiers, loudspeakers and cone mikes and on such occasions no useful work could be done in any of these offices, especially in Courts. Sometimes the nuisance starts from morning and continues till evening with amplified sound running into several decibels, the counsel complains.
The Petitioners seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents, who are the police officers of Tirur and Malappuram, not to give permission to use sound amplifiers and loudspeakers in front of the Court premises and also not to erect bamboo poles fitted with sound amplifiers and loudspeakers in the Municipal Town Hall.
No counter affidavit is filed; perhaps for want of any sound contention to controvert this common problem. Hence we have to proceed with the averments in the Original Petition as uncontroverted.
The problem of sound pollution have always attracted judicial review. The one who is against it pleads that it is an invasion of the right to be let alone, to hear what he wants to hear, to not to hear, what he does not wish to hear; and one who pleads for it takes shelter under the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
This Court in the decision in Anantha Prabhu v. District Collector and Anr. 1974 KLT 291 following the decision reported in Indulal K. Yagnik Vs. State and Others, held that the right which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is not merely a right to express and propagate one''s views, but also includes in it the right to circulate one''s view to Ors. by all such means as are available to the citizen to make known these views. But this Court in Venu v. Director General of Police 1990 (2) KLT 86 held that the right to use a loudspeaker is not a fundamental right in itself. It was further held that sound pollution is an accepted danger and indiscriminate use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted. It is for the authority to satisfy itself, whether in a given situation a loudspeaker can be used. As for freedom of expression, it is a constitutional guarantee and a prime perception, in a democratic society, but, subject to considerations of public order, morality and decency. Every freedom has its discernible frontiers. It is liable to be clipped public order, morality and decency. Disaffection, sedition, riots etc. will be valid grounds for restraint. This Court in another decision in Jacob v. Superintendent of Police 1992 (2) KLT 238 distinguished the decision reported in 1974 KLT 291 which followed the decision in AIR 1963 Guj 259, and struck a different note:
No one can forbid legitimate efforts to change the mind of society by expression of views or advocating different persuasions or even by questioning the existing order. But, there are frontiers even to freedoms. Liberty is not the right perpetuate licentiousness. Free speech does n it protect sedition, libel or obscenity. It docs not sanction intrusion into rights of Ors. . To be let alone, is as much a freedom, as the freedom to be heard. Right to silence or solitude, is as much a right, as right to expression is. What is negatively the right to silence, is positively freedom from injury by noise. The right to speech implies, the right to silence. It implies freedom, not to listen, and not to be forced to listen.
In Anr. unreported decision in O.P. 9560/88 this Court laid down certain guidelines to formulate a uniform policy in the matter of regulation of use of loudspeakers, as follows:
For functions like marriages, birthday celebrations, house, warming and the like, only box type loudspeakers should be permitted to be used and horn type sound amplifier should be totally banned. There should be strict instruction that the sound created by the amplifier will confine to the houses or halls, where such functions are held;
In temples, churches and mosques also, box type sound amplifier alone should be permitted. The use must be adjusted in such a way that sound will not go beyond the boundary of their premises. The call for prayer (Asan) in the mosque is only of one minute''s duration and as such this restriction may be relaxed in that case. For religious discourses, playing of devotional songs, Friday sermons in the mosque and also other ceremonies and functions in the churches, the above rule should be strictly enforced;
The use of loudspeakers in the street and vehicles must be avoided as far as possible, as this is a main source of sound pollution. Without prior permission, nobody will be permitted to use loudspeakers;
Air horns and high-torn horns have become a great source of sound pollution in recent times. In the circumstances, I feel that there should be a total ban on the use of air horn and high-torn horns;
Under no circumstances, sound amplifiers shall be permitted to be used between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
The said decision is under challenge and the same is pending consideration in Writ Appeal 235 of 1993.
The force of above decisions is that the right to use a loudspeaker is not a fundamental right in itself. Sound pollution is an accepted danger and indiscriminate the authority to satisfy itself whether in a given situation a loudspeaker could be used.
The problem posed by the Petitioners is not confined to Courts in Tirur; it is ubiquitous in nature. A loudspeaker is a lively symbol through which vibrates the robust as well as virulent notes emanating from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; both are necessary to sustain openness in a democracy. At the same time there are other interests and other rights which also deserve equal protection and preservation. The untrammeled blare of a loudspeaker in the premises of a Court-room is a menace which hampers the administration of justice. Lawyers and litigants throughout the State are daily witnesses to the pernicious problem of outside exhortations maligning and vitiating the clegance of a Court-room. The agitated always congregate in the precincts of a Court, perhaps because of the proximity of a public office, to ventilate their grievances or to canvass a cause. In a writ petition of this sort, the Court with its inbuilt limitations, is unable to traverse further.
However, before parting with the case, I have to commend the initiative taken by the two lawyers before me in highlighting a problem which craves for immediate remedial action. A collective initiative will definitely be more effective than a stray individual initiative howsoever earnest it may be. In this regard I call upon the Bar Associations and Lawyers'' Organisations to be more vigilant in preserving the purity of the Court atmosphere and providing basic amenities both within and outside the Court. Remember, administration of justice is everybody''s concern.
This Court on 21st December 1990 passed an interim order directing the Respondents to prevent the use of loudspeakers in front of the Court premises.
Under the above circumstance, I am inclined to confirm the interim order and incorporate the same in this final judgment. I therefore issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to prevent the use of loudspeakers in front of the premises of the civil Court in Tirur in a way to obstruct the normal work in the Court.
The Original Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.