words per minute
7
Himani1864556
00:00
Speed
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
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 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj, District Jaunpur (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.3 Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur in the writ petition).
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.
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.
The petitioner No.1 was granted permission by respondent No.4 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahganj on 15.01.2018 to use sound equipments as 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.
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.
In Acharaya Maharajshri1, 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....."
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."
In Church of God2, 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.
A similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy3 and the right to manage religious affairs has been held to be subject to other provisions of Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.
A Division Bench of this Court in Sant Kumar and others4 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 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.
It may not be out of place to refer to a Supreme Court decision in RE-: Noise Pollution5, 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.
In Farad K. Vadia6, 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.
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.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 09.1.2020
Nirmal Sinha