Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 10024  OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 24317 of 2013)

Dr. Balwant Singh                   Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Police & Ors.                Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted  

2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 21.05.2013  

passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of   the  High  Court  of

Page 2

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.  

Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 378 of 2013 which arises  

out of an order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the learned  

Single Judge in  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2013.

3. By impugned order, the Division Bench disposed of  

the appeal filed by the appellant herein in the light of the  

assurance  given  by  the  State  to  settle  the  controversy  

raised by the appellant in the writ petition/appeal.  

4. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant  

has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this  

Court.

5. This  Court  issued  notice  to  the  respondents.  On  

being served,  learned counsel  for  the respondents filed  

counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents.  

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In  order  to  appreciate  the  issue  involved  in  this  

appeal, it is necessary to mention the facts in brief.

8. The  appellant  (writ  petitioner)  is  the  resident  of  

2

Page 3

Jaipur  (Rajasthan).  He  retired  as  Director  General  of  

Police  in  March  1995.  To  settle  after  retirement,  the  

appellant constructed his house in a residential  colony  

opposite to Vidhyut Bhawan in Jyoti Nagar in Jaipur city.  

The  locality  and,  in  particular,  the  location  of  the  

appellant's house is very near to “Vidhan Sabha" (State  

Assembly Building).

9. The appellant  to  his  misfortune  noticed that  very  

frequently,  thousand/hundreds  of  people  belonging  to  

political/non-political  parties would gather on the road  

approaching to Vidhan Sabha,  which is  in front  of  his  

house,  with  agitated  mood  and  would  undertake  their  

“Protests  March” or  "Dharna"  or  "Procession"  for  

ventilating  their  grievances.  The  protestors  then  would  

use indiscriminately loudspeakers by erecting temporary  

stage on the road and go on delivering speeches one after  

the other throughout the day which sometimes used to  

continue  for  indefinite  period  regardless  of  time.  Since  

3

Page 4

there used to be a gathering of  thousand/hundreds of  

people,  the demonstrators would indiscriminately make  

use of  the compound walls of  nearby houses including  

that  of  the  appellant’s  house  to  ease  themselves  

frequently at any time.

10. In order to regulate such events and to maintain law  

and order situation, the State and Police Administration  

used to  put  barricades  and depute  hundreds of  police  

personnel to see that no untoward incident occurs. These  

barricades used to be installed just in front of the gates of  

the  houses  of  the  residents  including  the  appellant's  

house. The police personnel like others would also use  

the walls of the residential houses including that of the  

appellant's house to ease and nobody was in a position to  

tell them not to do such activities in front of their houses.  

The  appellant  also  noticed  that  these  activities  had  

gained  considerable  momentum  making  living  of  the  

residents of  that  area a miserable one because neither  

4

Page 5

they were in a position to stay comfortably and peacefully  

inside the house or do any work due to constant noise  

pollution  nor  were  in  a  position  to  come  out  of  their  

house due to constant fear of insecurity and restrictions  

put by the State.

11. The appellant was one of the most affected persons  

whose living in his house had become impossible due to  

these activities  and finding no solution to the problem  

faced, compelled him to first approach the Commissioner  

of Police and make an oral complaint but finding that no  

action was taken, filed a written complaint on 21.11.2011  

(Annexure P-1).  

12. In  the  complaint,  the  appellant  narrated  the  

aforementioned  grievances  in  detail  and  requested  the  

Commissioner  of  Police  to  take  immediate  effective  

remedial steps to prevent such events.

13. Since the Commissioner of Police did not take any  

action on the complaint,  the appellant,  on 06.03.2012,  

5

Page 6

filed  a  complaint  before  the  National  Human  Rights  

Commission (NHRC), New Delhi under the provisions of  

the  Human  Rights  Commission  Act,  2005  (hereinafter  

referred  to  as  “the  Act”).  The  NHRC  forwarded  the  

appellant's  complaint  to  the  Rajasthan  State  Human  

Rights  Commission  (RSHRC)  for  taking  appropriate  

action in accordance with law. The RSHRC, on receipt of  

the  complaint,   registered  the  same being  Petition  No.  

12/17/1720  and  by  order  dated  24.09.2012  partly  

allowed  the  appellant's  petition  and  directed  the  

Additional  Home  Secretary  to  order  the  concerned  

officials to effectively stop interference with the right of  

the appellant herein to lead an independent and peaceful  

life and ensure that :

“1.  The  crowd  of  demonstrators  does  not  assemble,  on  both  roads  opposite  to  the  petitioner’s  house  during  the  assembly  sessions.

2. The  demonstrators  are  not  allowed  to  use  

6

Page 7

high  powered  loudspeakers  during  day  and  night.

3. The road is not closed after stopping traffic  and  traffic  movement  is  maintained  in  a  sustained and orderly manner.

4. The policemen are stopped from urinating in  the proximity of the wall of the petitioner’s  house from the side of the M.L.A.’s complex  during the Assembly Sessions.  

5. No barricading is done on the road opposite  to, and near, the house of the petitioner.”

14. Despite issuance of the aforementioned directions,  

the State did not ensure its compliance and on the other  

hand,  some miscreants  attacked  the  appellant’s  house  

and hence out of disgust, the appellant was compelled to  

file writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of  

2013  before  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan  Bench  at  

Jaipur, seeking appropriate reliefs by issuance of writ of  

prohibition/mandamus  against  the  State  and  its  

authorities  to  protect  the  interest  of  the appellant,  his  

property and his peaceful living.  

15. Learned  single  Judge,  by  order  dated  25.02.2013  

7

Page 8

disposed of  the  appellant's  writ  petition  observing  that  

since the State has already taken all necessary steps in  

the light of the directions given by the RSHRC in their  

order dated 24.09.2012 and hence no more orders are  

called for in the writ petition.

16. Learned Single Judge, in the concluding part of his  

order, observed as under:

“……..I am of the considered view that no order on  the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be passed as  the  State  Government  has  already  taken  all  requisite  action within its powers to ensure that  the peace and quiet of the petitioner living in his  residential  house  at  Jyoti  Nagar  locality  in  proximity to Vidhan Sabha is not unduly disturbed.  It would be expected that measures detailed by the  Additional  Advocate  General  in  his  submissions  before this Court would be implemented strictly.”

17. The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed intra court appeal  

before the Division Bench of the High Court out of which  

this  appeal  arises.  The  Division  Bench,  by  impugned  

order,  more  or  less  on  the  same  lines  on  which  the  

learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition,  

decided the appellant's appeal.

8

Page 9

18. The Division Bench in the concluding part of their  

order observed as under:

“In view of that assurance extended on behalf  of the State Government, the learned single Judge  has  already  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  directions  issued  by  the  Human  Rights  Commission,  Rajasthan  in  its  order  dated  24.9.2012, have substantially been complied with.  At  this  stage,  the  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  cannot give further direction in the appeal.  The  State Government obviously shall also comply with  such order and act in conformity with assurance  given before the single Bench and take special care  to ensure that peace and quiet of the petitioner,  living  in  his  residential  house  at  Jyoti  Nagar  locality in proximity to Vidhan Sabha is not unduly  disturbed.”

It  is  against  the  aforementioned  order  of  the  Division  

Bench,  the  appellant  (writ  petitioner)  has  filed  this  

appeal.

19. The respondents have filed their  counter affidavit.  

The State, on affidavit, has stated that it is their duty to  

ensure  that  no  harm,  injury,  damage  or  

inconvenience/nuisance of  any nature is caused to the  

life and property of any citizen on account of any action  

9

Page 10

and activities of other person(s) or/and State authorities  

and  all  personal/fundamental/property  rights  

guaranteed  and  recognized  in  law  to  every  citizen  are  

protected to  enable  him to  lead a meaningful  life  with  

dignity and peace and to also enjoy his property.  It is  

further stated that in compliance to the order passed by  

RSHRC, the State has issued directions for ensuring its  

compliance which are as under:

“a. Deputy Commissioner of Police has been  put in charge of the area in order to ensure law and  order in and around the residence of the petitioner.

b.  Barricading  at  appropriate  distance  from the  residence of the petitioner so that the movement  of the residents as well as of the petitioner is not  restricted  as  such  and  also  because  of  the  demonstration  in  specific.  When  the  legislative  assembly is in session barricading is done at least  60 feet away from the residence of the petitioner.  

c. Mobile public toilets (two vehicles) have been  placed by the Rajasthan Municipal Corporation in  the concerned area so that hygiene is maintained  in and around the area which has been affected by  regular  demonstration.  Further  all  cautions  have  been taken that the public uses such facilities and  neither  police  personnel  on  duty  nor  the  demonstrator may spoil the walls of the petitioner  by  urinating.  

1

Page 11

d. Prior permission as per the Rules are being given  by  the  office  of  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police,  Jaipur (South) to  the demonstrators and District  Collector  is  directed  to  ensure  that  while  giving  permission  for  demonstration  it  may  also  check  that no instruments are allowed which may  violate  the Rules or cause noise pollution.”

20. It is with this background, the question arises as to  

whether  the  directions  issued  so  far  need  any  further  

modification and if so, to what extent.

21. The law on nuisance is  well  settled.   Nuisance in  

any  form as  recognized  in  the  law of  Torts  -  whether  

private,  public  or  common  which  results  in  affecting  

anyone's  personal  or/and  property  rights  gives  him  a  

cause of action/right to seek remedial measures in Court  

of law against those who caused such nuisance to him  

and further gives him a right to obtain necessary reliefs  

both in the form of  preventing committing of  nuisance  

and appropriate  damages/compensation for  the loss,  if  

sustained by him, due to causing of such nuisance. (See  

- Ratanlal Dhirajlal - Law of Torts by G.P.Singh - 26th  

1

Page 12

Edition pages-621,637,640).   

22. We  may,  at  this  stage,  consider  apposite  to  take  

note  of  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in Noise  

Pollution(V), In Re - Implementation of the Laws for  

restricting  use  of  loudspeakers  and  high  volume  

producing sound systems, (2005) 5 SCC 733, as in our  

considered view, it has a material bearing over the issue,  

which is the subject matter of this appeal.  

23. This Court while entertaining the PIL filed by one  

Organization called "Forum, Prevention of environmental   

and  sound  pollution"  had  the  occasion  to  examine  the  

issue in relation to nuisance of noise pollution caused to  

the  people  at  large  due  to  use  of  

equipments/apparatus/articles etc.  The noise pollution  

caused  generates  different  kinds  of  sounds  thereby  

constantly  creates  irritation  and  disturbance  to  the  

people.  Since  it  was  a  continuing  wrong  all  over  the  

1

Page 13

country and hence, this Court, in great detail, examined  

the issue in the light  of  the citizens rights  guaranteed  

under  Articles  19(1),  21 and 25 of  the  Constitution of  

India,  read  with  all  laws/rules/regulations  relating  to  

pollution, including penal laws governing this issue.  

24. Chief  Justice  R.C.  Lahoti  (as  His  Lordship  then  

was), speaking for the Bench in concluding para of the  

order, issued directions to all the States directing them to  

ensure that noise pollution caused due to use of various  

apparatus/  articles/  activities  must  be  curbed  and  

controlled by resorting to methods and modes specified in  

several  rules/regulations  dealing  the  subject.    These  

directions are extracted herein below:

“XII. Directions It is hereby directed as under: (i) Firecrackers

174. 1. On a comparison of the two systems i.e.  the  present  system of  evaluating  firecrackers  on  the basis of noise levels, and the other where the  firecrackers  shall  be  evaluated  on  the  basis  of  chemical  composition,  we  feel  that  the  latter  method is more practical  and workable in Indian  

1

Page 14

circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until  replaced by a better system.

2.  The  Department  of  Explosives  (DOE)  shall  undertake  necessary  research  activity  for  the  purpose and come out with the chemical formulae  for each type or category or class of firecrackers.  DOE shall  specify  the  proportion/composition  as  well as the maximum permissible weight of every  chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.

3. The Department of Explosives may divide the  firecrackers  into  two  categories—  (i)  sound- emitting firecrackers, and (ii) colour/light-emitting  firecrackers.

4.  There  shall  be  a  complete  ban  on  bursting  sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6  a.m. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to  time  on  bursting  of  colour/light-emitting  firecrackers.

5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each  firecracker  mention  details  of  its  chemical  contents and that it  satisfies the requirement as  laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part  of the manufacturer to mention the details or in  cases where the contents of the box do not match  the chemical  formulae as stated on the box,  the  manufacturer may be held liable.

6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be  manufactured bearing higher noise levels subject to  the  following  conditions:  (i)  the  manufacturer  should be permitted to do so only when he has an  export order with him and not otherwise; (ii)  the  noise levels for these firecrackers should conform  to the noise standards prescribed in the country to  which they are intended to be exported as per the  export order; (iii) these firecrackers should have a  different colour packing, from those intended to be  sold  in  India;  (iv)  they  must  carry  a  declaration  printed  thereon  something  like  “not  for  sale  in  India” or “only for export to country AB” and so  on.

1

Page 15

(ii) Loudspeakers 175. 1. 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 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise  standards  for  the  area  or  75  dB(A)  whichever  is  lower.

2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow  a trumpet or beat or sound any instrument or use  any sound amplifier at night (between 10.00 p.m.  and 6 a.m.) except in public emergencies.

3. The peripheral noise level of privately-owned  sound  system  shall  not  exceed  by  more  than  5  dB(A)  than  the  ambient  air-quality  standard  specified for the area in which it is used, at the  boundary of the private place. (iii) Vehicular noise

176. No horn should be allowed to be used at  night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential  area except in exceptional circumstances. (iv) Awareness

177. 1.  There  is  a  need  for  creating  general  awareness towards the hazardous effects of  noise  pollution. Suitable chapters may be added in the  textbooks which teach civic sense to the children  and youth  at  the initial/early-level  of  education.  Special  talks  and  lectures  be  organised  in  the   schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution  and  the  role  of  the  children  and  younger  generation  in  preventing  it.  Police  and  civil  administration should be trained to understand the  various methods to curb the problem and also the  laws on the subject.

2.  The  State  must  play  an active  role  in  this  process.  Resident  Welfare  Associations,  service  clubs  and  societies  engaged  in  preventing  noise  

1

Page 16

pollution  as  a  part  of  their  projects  need  to  be  encouraged  and  actively  involved  by  the  local  administration.

3.  Special  public  awareness  campaigns  in  anticipation  of  festivals,  events  and  ceremonial  occasions  whereat  firecrackers  are  likely  to  be  used, need to be carried out.

The abovesaid guidelines are issued in exercise  of  power  conferred  on  this  Court  under  Articles  141  and  142  of  the  Constitution.  These  would  remain  in  force  until  modified  by  this  Court  or  superseded by an appropriate legislation. (v) Generally

178. 1.  The  States  shall  make  provision  for  seizure  and  confiscation  of  loudspeakers,  amplifiers and such other equipment as are found  to be creating noise beyond the permissible limits.

2. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and  Control)  Rules,  2000  makes  provision  for  specifying ambient air-quality standards in respect  of noise for different areas/zones, categorisation of  the  areas  for  the  purpose  of  implementation  of  noise  standards,  authorising  the  authorities  for  enforcement  and  achievement  of  laid  down  standards.  The  Central  Government/State  Governments shall take steps for laying down such  standards  and  notifying  the  authorities  where  it  has not already been done.”

25. We  note  with  concern  that  though  the  aforesaid  

directions were issued by this Court on 18.07.2005 for  

ensuring compliance by all the States but it seems that  

these  directions  were  not  taken  note  of  much  less  

1

Page 17

implemented, at least, by the State of Rajasthan in letter  

and spirit with the result that the residents of Jaipur city  

had to suffer the nuisance of noise pollution apart from  

other related peculiar issues mentioned above so far as  

the appellant's case is concerned.  

26. Needless to reiterate  that  once this  Court  decides  

any question and declares the law and issues necessary  

directions then it is the duty of all concerned to follow the  

law laid down and comply the directions issued in letter  

and spirit by virtue of mandate contained in Article 141  

of the Constitution.  

27. In  our  considered  view,  in  the  light  of  the  

authoritative pronouncement rendered by this Court on  

the issue of noise pollution in the case of Noise Pollution  

(V), In Re (supra), it is not necessary for this Court to  

again  deal  with  the  same  issue  except  to  issue  

appropriate directions for its compliance.   

28. We,  accordingly,  direct  the  respondents  to  ensure  

1

Page 18

strict compliance of the directions contained in Para 174  

to 178 of the judgment of this Court in Noise Pollution  

(V),  In  Re  (supra), and  for  ensuring  its  compliance,  

whatever remedial steps which are required to be taken  

by the State and their concerned department(s), the same  

be  taken  at  the  earliest  to  prevent/check  the  noise  

pollution as directed in the aforesaid directions.

29. Now  so  far  as  the  disturbance  created  by  the  

police/state  officials/people  at  large  in  the  appellant’s  

peaceful  living  in  his  house  is  concerned,  in  our  

considered view, they do result in adversely affecting  the  

appellant’s  rights  guaranteed  under  Article  21  of  the  

Constitution as held by this Court in  Noise Pollution  

(V), In Re (supra) and also in Ramlila Maidan Incident  

in Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1.  The RSHRC and the writ Court  

were,  therefore,  justified  in  entertaining  the  complaint  

under the Act and the writ petition under Article 226 of  

the Constitution of India and in consequence justified in  

1

Page 19

giving  appropriate  directions  mentioned  above  while  

disposing the appellant's complaint/writ petition.  

30. We, however, note that the State was right on their  

part  in  not  contesting  the  appellant's  complaint/writ  

petition  by  raising  technical/legal  grounds  finding  the  

appellant's  grievance  made  in  his  complaint  to  be  

genuine  and  then  rightly  came  out  with  remedial  

suggestions to deal with the situation arising in the case.

31. Indeed, this reminds us of the subtle observations  

made by Justice M.C. Chagla, Chief Justice of Bombay  

High  Court  in  Firm  Kaluram  Sitaram Vs. The  

Dominion of India, AIR 1954 Bombay 50, wherein while  

deciding the case between the  citizen on the one hand  

and State on the other, the learned Chief Justice in his  

distinctive  style  of  writing  reminded  the  State  of  their  

duty towards the citizens while contesting his rights qua  

State and made the following observations.  

“….we have often had occasion to say that when  the  State  deals  with  a  citizen  it  should  not  

1

Page 20

ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is  satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one,  even though legal defences may be open to it,  it  must act, as has been said by eminent judges, as an  honest person……….”

32. We  are  in  complete  agreement  with  the  

aforementioned  statement  of  law  laid  down  in  Firm  

Kaluram Sitaram (supra) as far back as in 1954. In our  

considered view, the Constitution, inter alia, casts a duty  

on the State and their authorities to ensure that every  

citizen's  cherished rights  guaranteed to  him under  the  

Constitution are respected and preserved, and he/she  is  

allowed  to  enjoy  them  in  letter  and  spirit  subject  to  

reasonable  restrictions put on them, as dreamt by the  

framers of the Constitution.  Intervention of the Court is  

called for at the instance of citizen when these rights are  

violated by fellow citizens or by any State agency.

33. We have perused the steps suggested by the State in  

their counter affidavit and find that if the steps suggested  

by  the  State  are  implemented  in  letter  and  spirit  and  

2

Page 21

further  the  implementation  is  observed  in  its  proper  

perspective by the State and its authorities from time to  

time coupled with any other good suggestions, if noticed,  

while  implementing  the  suggestions,  then  most  of  the  

problems  presently  being  faced  by  the  appellant  and  

many others like him in the concerned area(s) would be  

reduced to a large extent.

34. We,  accordingly,  direct  the  respondents  to  ensure  

strict  compliance  of  the  conditions/steps  mentioned  in  

Paras 5 (a) to (d) of the Counter Affidavit extracted above  

and  while  ensuring  its  compliance,  if  the  respondents  

consider that it needs some amendment(s) for ensuring  

better implementation then in such eventuality, the same  

be  done  in  the  larger  interest  of  the  residents  of  the  

concerned  area  and  equally  for  the  benefits  of  the  

residents of different parts in the State. Needless to say,  

while  implementing  the  directions,  its  objective  should  

always be to ensure that the rights of the citizens are not  

2

Page 22

affected adversely by any kind of nuisance as mentioned  

above.  

35. In  view  of  the  foregoing  discussion  and  the  

directions contained above, the appeal succeeds and is  

allowed in part. Impugned order stands modified to the  

extent mentioned above.  

                              ……………………………………………………J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

                   .….…...............................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; November 07, 2014.

2