{"id":82541,"date":"2000-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2"},"modified":"2016-08-27T19:08:30","modified_gmt":"2016-08-27T13:38:30","slug":"church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2","title":{"rendered":"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M B Shah, J., S.N. Phukan, J.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.K.R.\tMAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t30\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM B Shah, J. &amp; S.N. Phukan, J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Shah, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;.I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<br \/>\n     The  questions  involved in this appeal are that  in  a<br \/>\ncountry\t having multiple religions and numerous\t communities<br \/>\nor  sects,  whether a particular community or sect  of\tthat<br \/>\ncommunity  can claim right to add to noise pollution on\t the<br \/>\nground of religion?  Whether beating of drums or reciting of<br \/>\nprayers\t by  use  of microphones and loudspeakers so  as  to<br \/>\ndisturb\t the peace or tranquility of neighbourhood should be<br \/>\npermitted?  Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers<br \/>\nshould\tbe  performed by disturbing the peace of others\t nor<br \/>\ndoes  it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers<br \/>\nor beating of drums.  In our view, in a civilized society in<br \/>\nthe name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm<br \/>\npersons,  students  or\tchildren having their sleep  in\t the<br \/>\nearly  hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on<br \/>\nother  activities  cannot  be permitted.  It should  not  be<br \/>\nforgotten  that\t young babies in the neighbourhood are\talso<br \/>\nentitled  to  enjoy  their natural right of  sleeping  in  a<br \/>\npeaceful   atmosphere.\t  A  student   preparing   for\t his<br \/>\nexamination  is\t entitled  to  concentrate  on\this  studies<br \/>\nwithout\t their\tbeing  any unnecessary\tdisturbance  by\t the<br \/>\nneighbours.  Similarly, old and infirm are entitled to enjoy<br \/>\nreasonable  quietness  during  their leisure  hours  without<br \/>\nthere  being  any nuisance of noise pollution.\tAged,  sick,<br \/>\npeople\tafflicted  with\t psychic  disturbances\tas  well  as<br \/>\nchildren  up  to  6 years of age are considered to  be\tvery<br \/>\nsensible  to  noise.  Their rights are also required  to  be<br \/>\nhonoured.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules for<br \/>\nnoise pollution level are framed which prescribe permissible<br \/>\nlimits of noise in residential, commercial, industrial areas<br \/>\nor silence zone.  The question is whether the appellant can<br \/>\nbe  permitted to violate the said provisions and add to\t the<br \/>\nnoise  pollution?  In our view, to claim such a right itself<br \/>\nwould be unjustifiable.\t In these days, the problem of noise<br \/>\npollution  has become more serious with the increasing trend<br \/>\ntowards\t industrialization,  urbanization and  modernization<br \/>\nand  is\t having\t many evil effects including danger  to\t the<br \/>\nhealth.\t   It  may  cause   interruption  of  sleep,  affect<br \/>\ncommunication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness,<br \/>\nhigh  blood  pressure,\tdepression,  irritability,  fatigue,<br \/>\ngastro-intestinal  problems,  allergy,\tdistraction,  mental<br \/>\nstress\tand annoyance etc.  This also affects animals alike.<br \/>\nThe  extent  of\t damage depends upon the  duration  and\t the<br \/>\nintensity  of noise.  Sometimes it leads to serious law\t and<br \/>\norder problem.\tFurther, in an organized society, rights are<br \/>\nrelated with duties towards others including neighbours.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Keeping  this background in mind, we would narrate\t the<br \/>\nfacts in brief for resolving the controversy involved in the<br \/>\npresent case.  This appeal by special leave is filed against<br \/>\nthe  judgment  and order dated 19.4.1999 passed by the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P.\t No.  61  of<br \/>\n1998.\tThe  appellant\tis the Church of God  (Full  Gospel)<br \/>\n(Church\t for  short) located at K.K.R.\tNagar,\tMadhavaram<br \/>\nHigh   Road,  Chennai.\t It  has  a  prayer  hall  for\t the<br \/>\nPentecostal   Christians  and  is   provided  with   musical<br \/>\ninstruments  such  as  drum set, triple gango,\tguitar\tetc.<br \/>\nRespondent  No.1-KKR  Majestic\tColony\tWelfare\t Association<br \/>\n(Welfare  Association  for  short)  made  a  complaint\ton<br \/>\n15.5.1996   to\tthe  Tamilnadu\t Pollution   Control   Board<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred\tto as the Board)  stating  therein<br \/>\nthat   prayers\tin  the\t Church\t  were\trecited\t  by   using<br \/>\nloudspeakers,  drums  and other sound producing\t instruments<br \/>\nwhich  caused noise pollution thereby disturbing and causing<br \/>\nnuisance to the normal day life of the residents of the said<br \/>\ncolony.\t  Complaints were also made to the Superintendent of<br \/>\nPolice\tand the Inspector of Police&#8211;respondents Nos 5 and 6<br \/>\nrespectively.  The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the<br \/>\nBoardrespondent No.4 herein on 23.5.1996 addressed a letter<br \/>\nto  respondent\tNo.5, the Superintendent of Police,  Chengai<br \/>\nMGR  District  (East),\tChennai,  to   take  action  on\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint.   On 12.6.1996, respondent No.4 again addressed a<br \/>\nletter\tto respondent No.5 enclosing therewith the  analysis<br \/>\nreport\tof  the Ambient noise level survey conducted in\t the<br \/>\nvicinity of the appellants church hall which disclosed that<br \/>\nnoise  pollution  was  due  to plying  of  vehicles  on\t the<br \/>\nMadhavaram  High Road.\tRespondent No.1 gave representations<br \/>\nto  various officials in this regard.  Thereafter respondent<br \/>\nNo.1Welfare  Association filed Criminal O.P.  No.61 of 1998<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  High  Court  of   Madras  for  a  direction  to<br \/>\nrespondent  Nos.  5 and 6 to take action on the basis of the<br \/>\nletter issued by respondent No.4.  In the High Court, it was<br \/>\ncontended  by  learned\tcounsel\t for  the  Church  that\t the<br \/>\npetition  was  filed  with  an oblique motive  in  order  to<br \/>\nprevent\t a religious minority institution from pursuing\t its<br \/>\nreligious   activities\tand  the   Court  cannot  issue\t any<br \/>\ndirection   to\tprevent\t the   Church  from  practicing\t its<br \/>\nreligious  beliefs.   It was also submitted that  the  noise<br \/>\npollution  was due to plying of vehicles and not due to\t use<br \/>\nof loudspeakers etc.<\/p>\n<p>     The  learned Judge referred to the decision of the High<br \/>\nCourt  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/783943\/\">Appa\t Rao, M.S.  v.\tGovernment of Tamil  Nadu  &amp;<br \/>\nAnother<\/a>\t  (1995-1  L.W.\t  (Vol.115)   319)   where   certain<br \/>\nguidelines  have  been laid down for controlling  the  noise<br \/>\npollution.   In\t Appa Raos case, the Division Bench of\tthe<br \/>\nMadras\tHigh Court after considering the contentions  raised<br \/>\nby  the parties and decisions cited therein and also to\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 41 and 71(a) of the Madras City Police<br \/>\nAct,  1888  and Section 10 of the Madras Town Nuisance\tAct,<br \/>\n1989 has issued directions to the Government for controlling<br \/>\nthe  noise  pollution  and  for the use\t of  amplifiers\t and<br \/>\nloudspeakers.  In the said case, the Court has observed that<br \/>\nthe  grievances of the petitioners, who have complained with<br \/>\nregard\tto the noise pollution were fully justified and\t the<br \/>\nauthorities  concerned\twere turning or made to turn by\t the<br \/>\nhigher\tpowers a Nelsons eye to the violation of rules\tand<br \/>\nregulations  in\t these matters.\t The Court  also  considered<br \/>\ncopy  of an article which appeared in the August, 1982 Issue<br \/>\nof  Science Today and a copy of the ICMR Bulletin of July,<br \/>\n1979  containing  a Study on Noise Pollution in South  India<br \/>\nwherein\t it is pointed out that noise pollution will lead to<br \/>\nserious nervous disorders, emotional tension leading to high<br \/>\nblood-pressure,\t  cardiovascular  diseases,    increase\t  in<br \/>\ncholesterol level resulting in heart attacks and strokes and<br \/>\neven damage to foetus.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  learned  Single  Judge   also\t referred  to  other<br \/>\ndecisions  and directed respondent Nos.5 and 6 to follow the<br \/>\nguidelines  issued  in Appa Raos case (Supra) and  to  take<br \/>\nnecessary  steps  to  bring  down the  noise  level  to\t the<br \/>\npermitted extent by taking action against the vehicles which<br \/>\nmake  noise  and  also by making the Church  to\t keep  their<br \/>\nspeakers  at a lower level.  He further held that the Survey<br \/>\nreport\tsubmitted  by  the Board would go to show  that\t the<br \/>\nChurch\twas  not  the sole contributor of the noise  and  it<br \/>\nappeared  that\tthe  interference of noise was also  due  to<br \/>\nplying\tof  vehicles.\tThe learned Judge pointed  out\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was nothing of malice and malicious wish to cause any<br \/>\nhindrance  to  the free practice of religious faith  of\t the<br \/>\nChurch\tand  if the noise created by the Church exceeds\t the<br \/>\npermissible decibels then it has to be abated.\tAggrieved by<br \/>\nthe said order, this appeal is filed by the Church.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.   G.  Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of appellant contended that the High Court has failed<br \/>\nto note that the two survey reports of the Pollution Control<br \/>\nBoard  clearly attributed the noise pollution in the area in<br \/>\nquestion  to  the  vehicular traffic and not to any  of\t the<br \/>\nactivities of the appellant-Church and, therefore, direction<br \/>\nissued in respect of controlling the noise ought not to have<br \/>\nbeen  extended in respect of the appellant-Church;  that the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  has  overlooked that the right to\tprofess\t and<br \/>\npractice  Christianity is protected under Articles 25 and 26<br \/>\nof  the\t Constitution of India which cannot be dislodged  by<br \/>\ndirecting   the\t authorities  to  have\t a  check   on\t the<br \/>\nappellant-Church;   and that the judgment relied upon by the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  in Appa Raos case (Supra) did not empower\tthe<br \/>\nauthorities to interfere with the religious practices of any<br \/>\ncommunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   learned  counsel  appearing\ton  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents   contended\t  that\t the  appellant-Church\t has<br \/>\ndeliberately tried to give religious colour to this cause of<br \/>\naction\t as  respondent\t no.1  &#8211;  Welfare   Association\t  is<br \/>\nconsisting of members belonging to all religions as found by<br \/>\nthe High Court.\t It is contended that even if the contention<br \/>\nof  the\t appellant-Churchthat  the noise created by  it\t is<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  prescribed limitis taken as it is,\t the  order<br \/>\npassed\tby the High Court will not in any way prejudice\t the<br \/>\nright  of religious practice of appellant because the  order<br \/>\nof  the High Court is only with regard to reducing the noise<br \/>\npollution  in  that area.  It is further contended that\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  can pass orders to protect and preserve a\tvery<br \/>\nfundamental  right of citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  of  India.   He relied upon  the\tjudgment  of<br \/>\nCalcutta  High\tCourt in Om Birangana Religious\t Society  v.<br \/>\nThe State and others [CWN 1995-96 (Vol.100) 617] wherein the<br \/>\nCourt  dealt with a similar matter.  The questions posed  by<br \/>\nthe  Court  for\t consideration werewhether the\tpublic\tare<br \/>\ncaptive\t audience  or listener when permission is given\t for<br \/>\nusing  loud-speakers  in  public  and\tthe  person  who  is<br \/>\notherwise  unwilling  to bear the sound and\/or the music  or<br \/>\nthe  communication  made  by the loud-speakers,\t but  he  is<br \/>\ncompelled  to tolerate all these things against his will and<br \/>\nhealth?\t  Does it concern simply a law and order  situation?<br \/>\nDoes  it  not generate sound pollution?\t Does it not  affect<br \/>\nthe  other known rights of a citizen?  Even if a citizen  is<br \/>\nill  and  even if such a sound may create adverse effect  on<br \/>\nhis  physical and mental condition, yet he is made a captive<br \/>\naudience to listen.  The High Court held that:\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t cannot be said that the religious teachers or\tthe<br \/>\nspiritual  leaders  who had laid down these tenets, had\t any<br \/>\nway desired the use of microphones as a means of performance<br \/>\nof  religion.\tUndoubtedly, one can practice,\tprofess\t and<br \/>\npropagate religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the<br \/>\nConstitution  but  that\t is  not  an  absolute\tright.\t The<br \/>\nprovision  of  Article\t25 is subject to the  provisions  of<br \/>\nArticle\t 19(1)(a)  of the Constitution.\t On true and  proper<br \/>\nconstruction  of  the provision of Article 25(1), read\twith<br \/>\nArticle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot be said that<br \/>\na  citizen should be coerced to hear any thing which he does<br \/>\nnot like or which he does not require.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thereafter, the High Court laid down certain guidelines<br \/>\nfor  the Pollution Control Board for grant of permission  to<br \/>\nuse loudspeakers and to maintain noise level in West Bengal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t our  view,  the contentions raised by\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the appellant deserves to be rejected  because<br \/>\nthe  direction given by the learned Judge to the authorities<br \/>\nis  only  to follow the guidelines laid down in\t Appa  Raos<br \/>\ncase decided by the Division Bench of the same High Court on<br \/>\nthe basis of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the Madras<br \/>\nTowns Nuisance Act, 1889.  It is also in conformity with the<br \/>\nNoise  Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed<br \/>\nby  the\t Central  Government  under the\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nEnvironment  (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of\t the<br \/>\nEnvironment  (Protection) Rules, 1986.\tRule 3 of the  Noise<br \/>\nPollution  (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for<br \/>\nambient\t air  quality  standards  in respect  of  noise\t for<br \/>\ndifferent  areas\/zones as specified in the Schedule  annexed<br \/>\nto the rule which is as under:-<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\nAmbient\t      Air Quality Standards in respec  t of Noise\n   __\nArea Code\t      Category of Area\/\t\t  Limits in dB(A)\nLeq.   Night Time\t\t\t\t  Zone\tDay Time@@\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t  JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJIIIIIIIIII<\/p>\n<p>(A)\t\t\tIndustrial Area\t\t\t    75\t\t\t70<br \/>\n(B)\t\t\tCommercial Area\t\t\t    65\t\t\t55<br \/>\n(C)\t\t\tResidential Area\t\t    55\t\t\t 45<br \/>\n(D)\t\t\tSilence Zone\t\t\t    50\t\t\t     40<\/p>\n<p>Note:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     (1) Day time shall mean from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm.<\/p>\n<p>     (2) Night time shall mean from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     (3)  Silence zone is defined as an area comprising\t not<br \/>\nless   than  100  metres   around   hospitals,\t educational<br \/>\ninstitutions  and courts.  The silence zones are zones which<br \/>\nare  declared as such by the competent authority.  (4) Mixed<br \/>\ncategories  of\tareas  may be declared as one  of  the\tfour<br \/>\nabove-mentioned categories by the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Other relevant rules for controlling noise pollution are: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.\t Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution<br \/>\ncontrol measures.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1)  The noise levels in any area\/zone shall not exceed<br \/>\nthe  ambient  air quality standards in respect of  noise  as<br \/>\nspecified in the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2)   The\tauthority  shall  be  responsible  for\t the<br \/>\nenforcement  of noise pollution control measures and the due<br \/>\ncompliance  of the ambient air quality standards in  respect<br \/>\nof noise.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.\t  Restrictions\ton  the use  of\t loudspeakers\/public<br \/>\naddress system.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not<br \/>\nbe  used except after obtaining written permission from\t the<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not<br \/>\nbe  used at night (between 10.00 p.m.  to 6.00 a.m.   except<br \/>\nin   closed   premises\tfor   communication   within,\te.g.<br \/>\nauditoria,  conference\trooms, community halls\tand  banquet<br \/>\nhalls.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone\/area.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Whoever,  in  any\tplace\tcovered\t under\tthe  silence<br \/>\nzone\/area  commits any of the following offence, he shall be<br \/>\nliable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,<\/p>\n<p>     (ii)  whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a\thorn<br \/>\neither\tmusical\t or pressure, or trumpet or beats or  sounds<br \/>\nany instrument, or<\/p>\n<p>(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances<br \/>\nof a nature to attract crowds.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Complaints to be made to the authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1)  A  person  may,  if the noise\t level\texceeds\t the<br \/>\nambient\t noise\tstandards by 10 dB(A) or more given  in\t the<br \/>\ncorresponding\tcolumns\t against  any\tarea\/zone,  make   a<br \/>\ncomplaint to the authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2)  The authority shall act on the complaint and\ttake<br \/>\naction\t against  the  violator\t in  accordance\t  with\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of these rules and any other law in force.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Power to prohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an<br \/>\nofficer\t incharge  of a police station or other\t information<br \/>\nreceived  by  him that it is necessary to do so in order  to<br \/>\nprevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk<br \/>\nof  annoyance,\tdisturbance,  discomfort or  injury  to\t the<br \/>\npublic\tor to any person who dwell or occupy property on the<br \/>\nvicinity,  he may, by a written order issue such  directions<br \/>\nas  he may consider necessary to any person for\t preventing,<br \/>\nprohibiting, controlling or regulating:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     (a)  the  incidence  or  continuance  in  or  upon\t any<br \/>\npremises of-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) any vocal or instrumental music,<\/p>\n<p>     (ii)  sounds  caused  by  playing,\t beating,  clashing,<br \/>\nblowing\t or  use in any manner whatsoever of any  instrument<br \/>\nincluding loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or<br \/>\napparatus  or  contrivance which is capable of producing  or<br \/>\nre-producing sound, or<\/p>\n<p>     (b)  the  carrying or in or upon, any premises  of\t any<br \/>\ntrade,\tavocation  or operation or process resulting  in  or<br \/>\nattended with noise.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2)  The  authority empowered under sub-rule  (1)\tmay,<br \/>\neither\ton  its\t own motion, or on the\tapplication  of\t any<br \/>\nperson aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1), either<br \/>\nrescind, modify or alter any such order:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Provided  that before any such application is  disposed<br \/>\nof,  the  said\tauthority shall afford to the  applicant  an<br \/>\nopportunity  of appearing before it either in person or by a<br \/>\nperson\trepresenting him and showing cause against the order<br \/>\nand  shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly<br \/>\nor in part, record its reasons for such rejection.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Aforesaid\trules  are unambiguous, clear and speak\t for<br \/>\nthemselves.   Considering  the same, it cannot be said\tthat<br \/>\nthe  directions\t issued by the High Court are in any  manner<br \/>\nillegal or erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the present case, the contention with regard to the<br \/>\nrights\tunder  Article 25 or Article 26 of the\tConstitution<br \/>\nwhich are subject to public order, morality and health are<br \/>\nnot  required  to be dealt with in detail mainly because  as<br \/>\nstated\tearlier\t no  religion prescribes  or  preaches\tthat<br \/>\nprayers\t  are  required\t to  be\t performed   through   voice<br \/>\namplifiers or by beating of drums.  In any case, if there is<br \/>\nsuch  practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of<br \/>\nothers\tincluding  that\t of  being not\tdisturbed  in  their<br \/>\nactivities.   We would only refer to some observations\tmade<br \/>\nby  the\t Constitution Bench of this Court qua  rights  under<br \/>\nArticles   25  and  26\tof   the  Constitution\tin   Acharya<br \/>\nMaharajshri  Narendra  Prasadji Anand Prasadji\tMaharaj\t and<br \/>\nOthers\tv.  The State of Gujarat &amp; Others [(1975) 1 SCC 11].<br \/>\nAfter  considering  the\t various   contentions,\t the   Court<br \/>\nobserved  that\tno  rights in an organized society  can\t be<br \/>\nabsolute.  Enjoyment of ones rights must be consistent with<br \/>\nthe  enjoyment\tof rights also by others.  Where in  a\tfree<br \/>\nplay  of  social forces it is not possible to bring about  a<br \/>\nvoluntary harmony, the State has to step in to set right the<br \/>\nimbalance  between  competing  interests.  The\tCourt  also<br \/>\nobserved  that a particular fundamental right cannot  exist<br \/>\nin  isolation in a water-tight compartment.  One Fundamental<br \/>\nRight  of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with\t the<br \/>\nexercise  of  another Fundamental Right by others also\twith<br \/>\nreasonable  and valid exercise of power by the State in\t the<br \/>\nlight of the Directive Principles in the interests of social<br \/>\nwelfare\t as  a\twhole.\tFurther, it is to  be  stated  that<br \/>\nbecause\t of  urbanization  or  industrialization  the  noise<br \/>\npollution may in some area of a city\/town might be exceeding<br \/>\npermissible  limits  prescribed\t under the rules,  but\tthat<br \/>\nwould  not be a ground for permitting others to increase the<br \/>\nsame  by  beating  of drums or by use of  voice\t amplifiers,<br \/>\nloudspeakers  or  by  such other  musical  instruments\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,   rules  prescribing\t   reasonable\trestrictions<br \/>\nincluding  the\trules for the use of loudspeakers and  voice<br \/>\namplifiers  framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act,\t1889<br \/>\nand also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,<br \/>\n2000  are  required to be enforced .  We would mention\tthat<br \/>\neven  though  the  Rules are unambiguous, there is  lack  of<br \/>\nawareness  among the citizens as well as the  Implementation<br \/>\nAuthorities  about  the Rules or its duty to  implement\t the<br \/>\nsame.\tNoise polluting activities which are rampant and yet<br \/>\nfor  one  reason  or the other, the aforesaid Rules  or\t the<br \/>\nrules  framed  under  various  State  Police  Acts  are\t not<br \/>\nenforced.   Hence,  the\t High  Court  has  rightly  directed<br \/>\nimplementation\tof  the same.  In the result, the appeal  is<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000 Author: Shah Bench: M B Shah, J., S.N. Phukan, J. PETITIONER: CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/08\/2000 BENCH: M B [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Church Of God (Full Gospel) In ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ... on 30 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ... on 30 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-27T13:38:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T13:38:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\"},\"wordCount\":3035,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\",\"name\":\"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ... on 30 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T13:38:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ... on 30 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ... on 30 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-27T13:38:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T13:38:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2"},"wordCount":3035,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2","name":"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In ... vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ... on 30 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T13:38:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/church-of-god-full-gospel-in-vs-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-on-30-august-2000-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Church Of God (Full Gospel) In &#8230; vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare &#8230; on 30 August, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}