It is quite ostensible that in a recent judgment titled Suryakant Balurao @ Ramrao Phad vs State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1161 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 8894 of 2018) delivered just recently on July 30, 2019, the Supreme Court has minced no words to unequivocally maintain the time tested dictum and endorsed by Supreme Court itself many times in the past that, “Interest of victim and society at large must also be kept in view while sentencing”. In this notable case, the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years to an ‘attempt to murder’ accused. But the Apex Court disagreed with this and laid down the reason also as to why it disagreed which we shall deal with subsequently.

First and foremost, the ball is set rolling in para 2 wherein while stating the facts of this case, it is pointed out that, “This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2016 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of respondent No. 2-accused No. 1 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from seven years to five years and imposed fine amount of Rs 25,000/-. Insofar respondent Nos. 3 and 4-accused Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court acquitted them from the charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and instead convicted them under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them to the period already undergone and imposed fine amount of Rs 25,000/- upon each of them. The High Court maintained the conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC also the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon each of them.”

While elaborating further, it is then pointed out in para 3 that, “The appellant-Complainant has filed this appeal challenging the reduction of sentence of imprisonment of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Case of prosecution is that on 24.01.2012 at about 05.30 PM, when Chandrakant (PW-6) was proceeding towards his land via Pangaon ‘T’ point, respondent No. 2-Devraj (A1) who along with respondent No. 3-Ashish (A2) and respondent No. 4-Balaji (A3) was standing near the mobile shop of one Prahlad Joshi, asked PW-6-Chandrakant why he obstructed respondent No. 4-Balaji (A3) from spreading the rubble in his field and there was some exchange of words between them. In this quarrel, Devraj (A1) took out pistol from his waist and fired one shot at PW-6-Chandrakant on his chest. Hearing the sound, Suryakant (PW-7), Shivaji (PW-5) and others rushed to the spot. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to be holding stick and stone respectively in their hands. When Suryakant (PW-7) tried to intervene, accused No. 1 fired a bullet from his pistol which hit on the left knee of PW-7. When Shivaji Phad (PW-5) tried to intervene, accused persons beat him with fists and kicked and also inflicted a knife blow on him causing him grievous hurt and then accused fled away. Injured PW-6 and PW-7 were taken to hospital and were given treatment. Suryakant (PW-7) lodged the complaint based on which FIR was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 323 and 506 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 307, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Later, charge under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act was altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.”

While elaborating on the chain of events in the Trial Court, it is then pointed out in para 4 that, “To prove the guilt of the accused, in the trial court the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and produced number of documents. Relying upon the evidence of injured eye-witnesses Chandrakant (PW-6), Suryakant (PW-7) and eye-witness Ram Phad (PW-4) and also upon the medical evidence, the trial vide judgment dated 23.12.2015 convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs 15,000/- each with default clause. The trial court also convicted them under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each with default clause. The trial court directed that out of the fine amount paid by the accused, Rs 20,000/- be given to injured Chandrakant (PW-6) and Suryakant (PW-7) each as compensation as per the provision of Section 357 Cr.P.C.”

Now turning the focus to High Court, we find that para 5 then elaborates stating that, “In the appeal filed before the High Court, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused No. 1-Devraj under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC but reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to five years. Additionally, the High Court directed accused No. 1-Devraj to pay a fine of Rs 25,000/- with default clause. The High Court also convicted accused No. 1-Devraj under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to the period already undergone by him and also directed to pay a fine of Rs 15,000/- with default clause. Insofar as conviction and sentence of imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the High Court maintained the same. The High Court acquitted accused No. 2-Ashish and accused No.3-Balaji from the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and instead convicted them under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by them and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to pay a fine of Rs 25,000/- each with default clause. The High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of imprisonment under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC imposed upon accused No.2-Ashish and accused No. 3-Balaji. Out of the fine amount deposited by the accused, a sum of Rs 60,000/- was directed to be paid to PW-6-Chandrakant and a sum of Rs 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to PW-7-Suryakant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, injured complainant-Suryakant (PW-7) has preferred this appeal.”

Needless to say, para 6 then lays bare that, “We have heard Mr Uday B Dube, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr Sudhanshu S Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4-accused No. 3 and also Mr Nishant R Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.”

While rapping the High Court on its knuckles for its undue leniency, it is then made clear by the Apex Court in para 7 that, “The learned counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia submitted that accused No.1-Devraj shot a bullet in the chest of PW-6-Chandrakant which pierced through his chest and came out from the back side and PW-11-Dr Manoj Landge opined that the injury sustained by PW-6-Chandrakant was grievous in nature which was capable of causing death and while so, the High Court was not right in showing undue sympathy to the respondents-accused and reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them.”

As it turned out, it is then unfolded in para 8 that, “The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4-accused Nos. 1 to 3 have submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other circumstances, the High Court exercised its discretion in reducing the sentence of imprisonment and at the same time increased the fine amount to be paid as compensation as per the provision under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgment reducing the sentence of imprisonment warrants no interference.”

To be sure, it is then clearly and convincingly held in para 9 that, “A person committing an offence under Section 307 IPC can be ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. To justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, intention of causing death or that it was done with the intention of causing such injury which is likely to cause death is necessary to constitute the offence. Although the nature of injury actually caused would be of considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused. Such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances.”

Truth be told, it is then unravelled in para 10 that, “Accused No. 1-Devraj was serving in the Army and was possessing a licence for carrying the pistol. If the evidence of injured witnesses PW-6-Chandrakant and PW-7-Suryakant and eye-witness PW-4-Ram Phad is considered in its entirety, it becomes clear that the attempt by accused No. 1-Devraj was with intention to teach a lesson to PW-6-Chandrakant as to why he opposed accused No.3-Balaji from spreading the rubble in his field and there was some hot exchange of words between them. Accused No.1-Devraj carrying the pistol shot at PW-6-Chandrakant at his chest which pierced through his chest. When PW-7-Suryakant tried to interfere, accused No.1-Devraj shot at PW-7-Suryakant also.”

What’s more, it is then unearthed in para 11 that, “In the occurrence, PWs 6 and 7 sustained the following injuries:-

“Injuries noticed on person of PW-6-Chandrakant

1) Punctured wound over lower 1/3rd of Pre-sternal area 2 x 2 cm oval, age less than six hours.

2) Punctured wound over right side of chest post-axillary line about in 7 inter costal space 2 x 2 cm oval, age less than six hours.

3) Contused lacerated wound over scalp left parieto occipital region, 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm, age less than six hours, simple in nature.

Injuries noticed on person of PW-7-Suryakant

1) Punctured wound on lateral aspect of upper part of left knee 2 x 2 cm oval, age less than six hours, simple in nature.

2) Punctured wound over medical aspect of popliteal region 2 x 2 cm oval, age less than six hours. Grievous in nature. X-ray shows displaced fracture of supracondylor.

The bullet injury pierced through the chest of PW-6-Chandrakant and came out from the back side. In his evidence, PW-11-Dr Manoj Landge specifically stated that injuries No.1 and 2 caused to PW-6-Chandrakant were capable of causing death. So far as the injuries caused to PW-7-Suryakant are concerned, PW-11-Dr Manoj Landge opined that they were not fatal to life.”

More importantly, it is then held in para 12 that, “While considering the quantum of sentence, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, nature of injuries caused in the occurrence and the weapon used which will have bearing on the question of sentence and the Courts are bound to impose sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Considering the nature of injuries caused to PW-6-Chandrakant i.e. gun shot wounds in the chest and the opinion of Doctor that the injuries caused to PW-6 are capable of causing death, in our view the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence of first accused-Devraj.”

Most importantly, while endorsing the trial court’s judgment and rapping the High Court on its knuckles, it is then very rightly held in para 16 that, “Considering the nature of the injuries caused to PW-6-Chandrakant and PW-7-Suryakant and the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court convicted accused No.1-Devraj under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 15,000/-. When the trial court has exercised its discretion in imposing seven years of imprisonment, the High Court ought to have kept in view the weapon used by accused No. 1 and the nature of injuries caused to PW-6-Chandrakant and the opinion of the Doctor. The courts must not only keep in view the right of the accused, but must also keep in view the interest of the victim and society at large. The courts have been consistent in approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the gravity of the offence and the punishment. While it is true that the sentence imposed upon the accused should not be harsh, inadequacy of sentence may lead to sufferance of the victim and the community at large. So far as the first accused-Devraj is concerned, the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon first accused. As pointed out earlier, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years and increased the fine amount to Rs 25,000/- and part of the said fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured PW-6-Chandrakant and PW-7-Suryakant. Since the enhanced compensation was paid by accused No. 1 which is said to have been withdrawn by injured-victims, for conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the first accused-Devraj shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and six months.”

Be it noted, it is then observed in para 17 that, “So far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4-accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, at the time of occurrence, they were not armed. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are alleged to have attacked the injured with fist and kicked and with sticks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. So far as conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the High Court took into consideration that accused No.2-Ashish was nineteen years old at the time of occurrence and accusedNo.3-Balaji was thirty-eight years old and keeping in view their age and family circumstances and that they were not having criminal antecedents, the High Court thought fit to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from six months to the period already undergone by them. Since accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not armed with deadly weapons, we are not inclined to interfere with their acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and the reduction of sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.”

It cannot be lost on us that it is then observed in para 18 that, “In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 12.07.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2016 is set aside. For conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the second respondent-accused No.1-Devraj is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and six months and the appeal is partly allowed. The acquittal of respondent Nos.3 and 4-accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is affirmed and the judgment of the High Court convicting them under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon accused No. 2 and 3 to the period already undergone is also affirmed and the appeal qua respondent Nos. 3 and 4-accused Nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed. So far as the fine amount imposed upon the accused and the direction of the High Court to pay the compensation to the injured under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is maintained.” Lastly, it is then held in para 19 that, “The accused No.1-Devraj is directed to surrender within four weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence failing which, he shall be taken into custody.”

Before parting, it must be said that this landmark, latest and extremely laudable judgment has unquestionably once again reiterated what has been held earlier also in many cases like Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471, Ravinder Singh v State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 588, State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441 and others that the courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. It has also been rightly held that justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crimes and that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. This alone explains why the Apex Court in this case differed with High Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years to an ‘attempt to murder’ accused! Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

While disposing off five writ petitions to curb excessive noise pollution in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities. It minced no words in holding that glorification of violence has given rise to culture of gangsters. Therefore, it has rightly banned songs glorifying violence in public events.

It must be mentioned here that in these five writ petitions – 1. CWP No. 6213 of 2016 (O&M) Reet Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others, 2. CWP-PIL No. 27011 of 2016 (O&M) Panditrao Dharenavar vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Punjab and others, 3. CWP-PIL No. 32 of 2018 (O&M) Court on its own motion vs State of Punjab and others, 4. CWP-PIL No. 42 of 2018 (O&M) Ram Kumar Garg vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 5. CWP No. 11564 of 2018 (O&M) Serving in Organisations for Legal Initiatives vs Union of India and others, a two Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu on July 22, 2019 while disposing off these five writ petitions filed to curb excessive pollution in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh has clearly prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities. Very rightly so! We all know the ill effects of loud speakers very well.

To start with, this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment authored by Justice Rajeev Sharma for himself and Justice Harinder Singh Sindhu begins to unfold its cards by first and foremost pointing out in para 1 that, “This order will dispose of aforesaid five writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.”

To put things in perspective, it is then brought out in para 2 that, “This Court vide order dated 14.3.2019 had constituted a Committee headed by Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate/Amicus Curiae together with Shri Akshay Bhan and Ms. Reeta Kohli, Senior Advocates and Shri Pankaj Jain, Senior Standing Counsel, U.T. Chandigarh, Shri Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Shri Shireesh Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.”

While specifying the purpose of this Committee, it is then spelt out in para 3 that, “The Committee was ordered to make suggestions to this Court for formulating a policy to be implemented in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, for effective implementation of the provisions of law to control noise pollution and decide other allied issues.”

While elaborating further, it is then spelt out in para 4 that, “The Committee had invited suggestions from the Committee Members and various stakeholders from various parts of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh. The first meeting of the Committee was held on 24.4.2019. The second meeting was held on 12.5.2019. The Committee opined that there are adequate provisions of law to control the menace of noise pollution but what is lacking is its effective implementation. The following suggestions were given for effective implementation of the provisions of law:-

i) To make the prevention of noise pollution an integral part of the Swachh Bharat Mission.

ii) Sensitize people, both the officials and the general public, about the hazardous effects of noise pollution and its ill-effects on human beings, birds and animals as well as nature.

iii) Sensitize religious institutions, marriage palaces and other noise producing institutions about the adverse impact of noise pollution in the vicinity. In this respect highlighting the Hukamnama issued by Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on use of loudspeakers only within the precincts of a Gurudwara.

iv) This process of sensitizing the public should be done through an aggressive campaign of 4-6 months through pamphlets, posters, newspapers, electronic media, advertisements, messages through mobile operators, etc., especially by taking the Health Department of the three governments on board.

v) The press and the media should also be requested to highlight the adverse effects of noise pollution.

vi) The authorities responsible for implementing the laws have to be warned that it is their duty to implement the laws. In this respect, the Chief Secretaries/Advisor and the DGPs should be made responsible for implementation of the law and to ensure that the supporting authorities under the Rules perform their duties effectively.

vii) As an aid to discharging their functions, the authorities should be equipped with modern noise monitoring devices.

viii) Each religious institution should be asked to nominate a responsible person to ensure the implementation of the law and in case of any breach, should be held accountable.

ix) Places which produce noise regularly e.g. Religious institutions, marriage palaces, barred industrial units, etc. should have noise monitoring devices installed to prevent them going above the permissible limit.

b) Setting up a common hotline for Punjab, Haryana and the U.T. Chandigarh

i) After creating a common command for Chandigarh region i.e. including Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula, there should be a common helpline where complaints can be made which can further be sent to the concerned Authorities in their respective areas accessible on phone, Whatsapp or email. Single phone number of email ID should cater to whole of the territory and the same should be widely advertised and published on radios and in newspapers, electronic media, etc.

ii) That the Authorities must have in House Standard Operating Procedure clearly defining steps that are to be taken after a complaint is received specifying outer time limit within which those steps shall be completed, so that the complaint can be taken to its logical end.

iii) The identity of the complainant should be kept confidential.

iv) Record of the complaints made should be maintained by the responsible enforcing authority under the Rules.

c) Registering of Complaints

i) As the enforcement of the noise pollution laws have to be through the Chief Secretaries/DGP, the supporting enforcing authorities would send weekly reports of the complaints received and the action taken.

ii) If a complaint is made, the guilty party should be let-off the first time with a warning.

iii) For the second violation, action in accordance with the applicable rules should be taken.

iv) For a third successive violation not only the guilty party but the enforcing agency should be held guilty of Contempt of Court or would necessitate the registering of a First Information Report.

d) Places requiring permission/licence

i) In places in which a licence/prior permission is required for holding functions etc., an undertaking should be obtained from the applicant to comply with the rules governing levels of sound. In case of any breach, the licence/permission would stand automatically revoked and the person would be liable to be proceeded against.

ii) The enforcing authorities could resort to video-recording of the noise pollution complaint which can easily be done with a good mobile phone, if equipment recording the level of noise is also photographed simultaneously.

OR

A mobile application can be developed (as was done by the Election Commission of India during the 2019 Lok Sabha Election) whereby a photograph/video showing a violation can be sent to the enforcing authority and action needs to be taken within 60 minutes.

In addition each PCR van should be equipped with a Noise Monitoring Device or a Decibel Meter.

e) Regarding Chandigarh

i) Whenever community centers in Chandigarh are allowed to be used for marriages or other functions, a certain sum of money should be kept in deposit to ensure that there is no noise pollution. In case of breach, the money should be confiscated while in case of compliance it should be refunded.”

It would be imperative to now mention that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it known in no uncertain terms in para 14 that, “We have gone through the report submitted by the Committee. We agree with the suggestions/inputs made by the Committee. Since the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh have not filed their response, we are not left with any option but to dispose of the writ petitions after accepting the suggestions/inputs made by the Committee.”

What’s more, it is then also made clear in para 15 that, “The Governments of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh have not taken sufficient measures to check the noise pollution either emanating from the factories or by way of indiscriminate use of loudspeakers/amplifiers even by religious bodies, may be by Temples, Mosques and Gurudwaras.”

Interestingly enough, para 16 then envisages that, “The Central Government has framed the Noise Pollution (Regulations and Control) Rules, 2000. According to Rule 3, the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall be such as specified in the schedule annexed to these Rules. The State Governments are required to categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of the implementation of noise standards for different areas. It is the prime responsibility of the State Government under Rule 3 (3) to take effective measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements; blowing of horns, bursting of sound emitting fire crackers, use of loudspeakers or public address systems and sound producing instruments and to ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these Rules. According to Rule 4, the noise level in an y area/zone shall not exceed 10dB(A) above the ambient noise standards specified in the schedule. The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution. The “authority” is defined under Rule 2(c). Rule 5 being important is reproduced as under:-

“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.

(2) A loud speaker or a public address system or any sound producing instrument or a musical instrument or a sound amplifier shall not be used at night time except in closed premises for communication within, like auditoria, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls or during a public emergency.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State Government may subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loud speakers or [public address systems and the like during night hours] (between 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year] [The concerned State Government shall generally specify in advance, the number and particulars of the days on which such exemption would be operative.]

(4) The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75dB(A) whichever is lower.

(5) The peripheral noise level of a privately owned sound system or a sound producing instrument shall not, at the boundary of the private place, exceed by more than 5dB(A) the ambient noise standards specified for the area in which it is used.

5A. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HORNS, SOUND EMITTING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS AND BURSTING OF FINE CRACKERS.-

(1) No horn shall be used in silence zones or during night time in residential areas except during a public emergency.

(2) Sound emitting fire crackers shall not be burst in silence zone or during night time.

(3) Sound emitting construction equipments shall not be used or operated during night time in residential areas and silence zones”.”

Needless to say, it is then stated in para 17 that, “According to plain reading of Rule 5, a loudspeaker or a public address system cannot be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority. The loudspeaker or any sound producing instrument or a musical instrument or a sound amplifier cannot be used at night time except in closed premises for communication within, like auditoria, conference rooms, community halls, Banquet halls etc. The State Government may subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce the noise pollution, permit use of loudspeakers or public address systems and like during night hours between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used cannot exceed 10dB(A) above the ambient noise standards.”

While pooh-poohing the lack of strict implementation of rules, it is then held in para 18 that, “The Governments of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh have not enforced the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 5 effectively. The loudspeakers keep on blaring even beyond 12.00 midnight. The loudspeakers keep on blaring even beyond 12.00 midnight. The loudspeaker cannot be permitted to be used without the written permission from the authority even by the Temples, Mosques and Gurudwaras. It is only for limited period of festival and special occasions that for 15 days, the permission can be granted to use the loudspeakers and public address system between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. The indiscriminate use of loudspeaker or amplifier or musical instrument causes annoyance, disturbance and discomfort. It disturbs the sleeping pattern of the patients. The study of the students is also adversely affected.”

More worryingly, it is then observed in para 22 that, “The glorification of violence has given rise to culture of gangsters in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh.” Violence under no circumstances can ever be justified. Justification of violence under any circumstances only serves in contributing further to bring about more lawlessness and the culture of gangsters gets further promoted! How can this be ever justified?

Not stopping here, it is then further added in para 23 that, “The Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that glorification of the liquor, wine, drugs and violence in the songs in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, has increased in recent times. These songs affect the children of impressionable age. The children below the age of 12 years are not to be permitted to enter cinema halls/multiplexes, where “A” certificate films are screened. Semi-nude film posters are vulgar and display nudity. There is indecent representation of women, which is derogatory to women.”

Be it noted, it is then underscored in para 24 that, “As far as the frequent deaths and injuries caused by the persons using fire arms in marriage/religious processions/social gatherings/public/political rallies, this tendency is required to be curbed.”

Suffice it to say, para 26 then holds that, “It is thus evident that the fire-arms can be permitted to be carried for the purpose of sport/self-protection/protection of crops and cattle/display. The fire-arms are not permitted to be carried in a fair, religious procession or other public assemblage or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution.”

To say the least, while sounding a note of caution, it is then observed in para 27 that, “The licence for fire-arms is issued only for limited purposes. No person has a fundamental right to hold fire-arms. The State has absolute right to regulate acquisition and use of arms by laying down the norms.”

Finally and perhaps most significantly, it is then held in para 28 that, “Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following mandatory directions:-

i) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including religious bodies in Temples, Mosques and Gurudwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 10dB(A) peripheral noise level.

ii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that the loudspeaker, public address system, musical instrument and sound amplifier are not played during night time except in auditoria, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls as per norms laid down under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

iii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that loud speakers or public address systems are not used between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., except between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding 15 days in all during a calendar year, that too, the noise level shall not exceed 10dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area. The peripheral noise level of a privately owned sound system or a sound producing instrument shall not, at the boundary of the private place, exceed by more than 5dB(A). The authority concerned shall keep on visiting and monitoring at the public places, private places, auditoriums, conference rooms, community halls, conference rooms, community halls, banquet halls, temples, mosques and Gurudwaras to ensure due compliance of the Rules.

iv) We direct all the Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh to ensure that no horn shall be blown in silence zone or during the night time between 10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. in residential areas except during public emergency. No sound emitting construction equipments shall be used or operated during the night time between 10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. in residential areas or silence zone. The pressure horns are banned throughout the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh. The violators of the Rules be penalized under the Rule 6 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

v) All the Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that motorcycles throughout the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are duly fitted with silencers to avoid noise pollution and menace.

vi) No person, throughout the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, shall carry any fire-arm to a fair, religious procession/marriage procession or other public assemblage or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution.

vii) The Licensing Authorities are also directed to ensure that no licence is issued to any person, who has not completed the age of 21 years.

viii) No licence shall be issued to a person who has been sentenced on conviction of any offence involving violence or moral turpitude to imprisonment for [any term] at any time during a period of five years.

ix) No licence shall be issued to a person who has been ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, during the term of the bond.

x) The Director General of Police in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, are directed to ensure that no songs are played glorifying the liquor, wine, drugs and violence in any song even in live shows.

xi) The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are also directed that no child below the age of 12 years is permitted to enter cinema halls/multiplexes, where “A” certificate films are screened.

xii) The District Administration is directed to ensure that nude posters, semi-nude posters, obscene posters should not be fixed/displayed in any district near the educational institutions in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh.

xiii) The Deputy Commissioners in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that no loudspeakers are permitted 15 days before the annual examinations and during the course of examinations.

xiv) The recommendations made by the Committee constituted by this Court are ordered to be implemented in letter and spirit for proper enforcement of law.

xv) The District Magistrates/Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police of each district shall be personally responsible to ensure due compliance of the directions issued hereinabove.”

Before parting, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu observed in para 29 that, “We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the Committee” and then finally in para 30 that, “A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for compliance.”

All in all, it is a very well written judgment which demonstrates zero tolerance for noise pollution. It ably issues a series of mandatory directions to ensure that noise pollution is contained to a large extent. There can be no denying or disputing that this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court deserves to be implemented in letter and spirit and all the High Courts must emulate this landmark judgment to ensure that noise pollution is contained to a large extent! It also leaves no room for doubt in holding very rightly that those songs which glorify violence must be banned in public events!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.