Silence zones in state to stay: Court

After the friction between the judiciary and the state government over silence zones, a three-judge high court bench on Friday upheld the enforcement of deemed silence zones for the time being, saying the Centre's amendment to Noise Pollution Rules that struck down noise restrictions in place for certain neighbourhoods is "unconstitutional" and does not serve "public interest".       

The bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Anoop Mohta and Riyaz Chagla stayed implementation of the August 10 amendment by the Union environment ministry, and directed the state to prosecute violators for using loudspeakers in deemed silence zones during the ongoing Ganpati festival. But, beyond lodging an FIR, police would not be able to proceed with the case until the court orders it.

As per the amendment, powers for notifying silence zones were delegated to the state, and previously deemed silence zones, within 100 meters of schools, hospitals and courts, were not to be identified as such until notified. Turn to P6

The bench said the amendment violates Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantess Right to Life and Liberty, and observed that it had no connecion to its aim of upholding "public interest".

It cited Supreme Court judgments and a high court order from last year, saying, "Prima facie, impugned rules don't stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution as they are not in public interest." It added that if the amendment was to be accepted, then loudspeakers could be used even within "five metres of a school, hospital or court".

The court's stay came in reposne to a bunch of petitions filed by Dr Mahesh Bedekar and Awaaz Foundation.

The court also noted that no authority had issued any public notice before amending the noise rules.

"A publication of public notice is essential to enable citizens to submit objections and suggestion for the Government to consider before framing the rules. Central Government has powers for exercising rule of not issuing it. However, if the amendment sought is in public interest, principles of natural justice are to be followed," it said, adding that when the rule was amended in 2009 and 2010, prior public notice was given.

The court went on to say that since 2003, the consistent view has been that a radius of 100 metre around hospitals, schools and courts comprises silence zones, even if not notified by the authorities. The state had earlier challenged this limit in the apex court but its contention was dismissed.

After the Friday's order, the central and state governments sought a stay so it could be challenged in the Suptreme Court, arguing that implementing the order would lead to a law and order situation. But the bench rejected it, retorting, "Since 2003 till 2017, there was no law and order situation when rules were implemented."

Awaaz Foundation's convener Sumaira Abdulali hailed the order. "It will help the health of many Mumbaikars," Abdulali said.

While arguing for the stay, the petitioners had said, "The amendment has to be brought in to advance the purpose of the rules and not defeat them." In his turn, additional solicitor general Anil Singh, appearing for the Union government, argued that for exercising rule-making power, no prior publication of amendment is required. The state, meanwhile, contedned that deemed silence zones would act as guiding factors while re-notifying silence zones as per the amendment.