Bombay High Court Imposes Total Ban On Bursting Firecrackers On Public Streets And Roads During Festivities
The Court also prohibited laser and high-intensity lights during processions and directed authorities to require visible decibel meters and internal sound limiters while granting permissions for sound systems.
The Bombay High Court has imposed a total ban on bursting firecrackers on public streets and roads during festivities and directed authorities across Maharashtra to take all measures necessary to prevent the resulting air and noise pollution.
The Court was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation initiated over the public nuisance and environmental pollution caused by the unregulated use of amplified music systems and firecrackers on public streets during festivals.
A Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale directed: “There shall be a total ban to the bursting of firecrackers during festivities on public streets, roads, etc. The authorities shall take all measures to implement the said direction and prevent air and noise pollution being generated by the use of firecrackers.”
Advocate General Milind Sathe appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy appeared as Amici Curiae. Senior Advocates S.M. Gorwadkar and Anil Sakhare appeared for the intervenors.
Background
The High Court initiated the proceedings after expressing concern over the noise and environmental pollution generated by unregulated amplified music systems and firecrackers on public streets during festivals.
The Court examined the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It noted that District Magistrates, Police Commissioners and designated officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police were responsible for enforcing ambient noise standards.
The Rules also require the State Government, development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities to control noise from firecrackers, loudspeakers, public-address systems, vehicles and sound-producing instruments.
After considering the submissions of the State, the Amici Curiae and intervenors, the Court found that the available statutory provisions and earlier judicial directions had not been effectively implemented.
Court’s Observations
The Court rejected the suggestion that the statutory restrictions on noise could be treated as relaxed merely because the activities occurred during festivals.
The Bench observed that the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 continued to apply during festivities and that the enforcement machinery had shown laxity despite repeated proceedings concerning violations.
The Bench remarked: “We may observe that the provisions cannot remain paper provision. Similarly the decisions which are rendered by the Court on all these issues cannot fall to deaf ears. Also the permissions which are granted and the general orders which are issued by the authorities like Police Commissioners cannot remain to be routine formality and rendered ineffective by the inaction of the official machinery, permitting every kind of violation.”
The Court added that the available enforcement measures could not remain confined to paper while members of the public continued to suffer the health consequences of excessive noise and air pollution.
The Court observed that the authorities could not wait for complaints before acting against violations. A complaint-based response would begin only after the prohibited noise had already caused harm.
The Bench emphasised the need for preventive enforcement: “Further, there cannot be an approach of actions being taken only after complaints are received and only then setting into motion any plenary mechanism. Mr. Chinoy would be right in his contention that the need of the hour, is of a robust preventive mechanism under which the violation of the noise pollution norms is required to be prevented rather than retribution.”
The Court stated that imposing minor penalties after the event would not satisfy the object of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 because the pollution and its effects would already have occurred.
The Bench also found that authorities such as the Police Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and other designated bodies had not implemented the available legal provisions in their letter and spirit.
The Court observed that densely populated cities required stricter regulation of high-watt speakers, loudspeakers, amplified sound systems and similar instruments during processions and celebrations.
The Bench underscored: “It is high time that in large cities having dense population like Mumbai, Thane, Pune, Nashik, where majority of the citizens are made to silently suffer such brazen violations, a regime of total restraint on the playing of loud music by use of high watt speakers, sound system, loud speakers, dhol tashas, use of cylinders etc. needs to be completely banned and a more dignified and civilized way of having these processions and celebrations, is the imminent requirement of the contemporary times.”
The Court directed police and other authorities to measure the decibel levels generated by permission-holders and to act against unlicensed, unauthorised or illegal use of sound systems. Devices, instruments and other offending material must be seized and confiscated when violations are detected.
The Bench further directed that applications seeking permission to use sound-generating devices at venues or in processions must contain an undertaking to install visible decibel meters and use sound systems fitted with internal sound limiters.
The Court also required designated officials to record individual and cumulative decibel levels in the presence of representatives of the permission-holders.
The Court directed authorities to consider requiring a deposit of at least ₹1 lakh from an association or group and ₹50,000 from an individual as a condition for permission under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The deposit may be forfeited if permitted decibel levels are breached, apart from other action required by law.
The Bench directed organisers to display their permissions and the names, addresses and mobile numbers of the persons responsible for the festival or procession so that accountability could be fixed for violations.
The authorities were also directed to assess the cumulative effect of multiple permissions granted within one municipal ward. The Court held that permissions could not be granted without a methodical and scientific assessment of their cumulative noise impact.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court imposed a total ban on bursting firecrackers on public streets and roads during festivities. It also prohibited laser lights, high-intensity lumen lights and beams during festivities and processions.
The Court directed authorities to monitor and record decibel levels, require decibel meters and sound limiters, seize offending devices, consider security deposits and assess the cumulative effect of multiple permissions within an area. Organisers must display their permissions and identify the persons responsible for complying with the conditions.
Violators would be liable to action under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Explosives Act, 1884 and other applicable laws.
The order was directed to be circulated to all concerned authorities in Maharashtra for implementation during festivities. The suo motu proceedings were adjourned for further consideration.
Cause Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution; Public Nuisance Caused By Unregulated Use Of Music Systems With Amplifiers And Firecrackers On Public Streets During Festivals
Appearances
Intervenors: Senior Advocates S.M. Gorwadkar and Anil Sakhare; Advocates Sujay H. Gangal, Manish Kelkar and Gauri Phadake; Advocates Vilas Tapkir, Vilas Deshmane and Ajay Deshmane
Respondents: Advocate General Milind Sathe; Government Pleaders Anjali Helekar and Neha S. Bhide; Additional Government Pleaders Jyoti Chavan and Onkar A. Chandurkar; Assistant Government Pleader P.N. Diwan; Advocate Jaya Bagwe for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board; ACP Raul, PSI Chavan and Law Officer Atif Noor Hasan Shaikh; Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy & Advocate Anand Pai (Amici Curiae)