The 50 Most Important Indian Court Judgments Explained

#Case Name
1A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case)
2Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab
3Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
4Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
5BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India
6Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
7Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar
8Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) v. Nisar Khan
9D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
10Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
11Dr (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai
12Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
13Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
14Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India
15Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India
16Gaurav Jain v. Union of India
17Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar
18I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
19In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra
20In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover
21Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
22Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
23L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
24Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
25M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi
26M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame
27Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’costa
28Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
29Minerva Mills v. Union of India
30Mr. X v. Hospital Z
31Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
32Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia
33Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
34Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel
35Parmanand Katara v. Union of India
36PUCL v. Union of India
37Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
38Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
39S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
40Sakshi v. Union of India
41Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
42Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty
43Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
44Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
45Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
46State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat
47State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
48Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration
49Vincent v. Union of India
50Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

Back
Next

(15) Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 733

Facts in Brief

In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court complaining of the noise created by the use of loudspeakers in religious performances, bhajan singing and the like, in busy commercial localities on weekly off-days. It was submitted that such musical interruptions had become a nuisance for residential areas and had made life miserable.

Judgment

Agreeing that noise pollution had reached menacing levels, prevailing even in residential areas, the Supreme Court discussed the legal issues dealing with noise pollution in India, the ineffectiveness of environmental laws in the country, the methodology adopted in other jurisdictions, and the environmental standards and rules in India. It thereupon issued directions to deal with the situation at hand. These dealt with: (a) firecrackers, (b) loudspeakers, (c) vehicular noise, and (d) creating awareness among the Indian masses. Some of them, in particular, were:

  • A complete ban on bursting sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
  • The noise level in a public place must not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area, or 75 dB(A), whichever is lower.
  • No beating of drums or tom-toms, blowing of trumpets or any instrument, or use of any sound amplifier at night (between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.), except in public emergencies.
  • No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in a residential area, except in exceptional circumstances.
  • Suitable chapters should be added to textbooks that teach civic sense to children and youth at the initial or early level of education. Special talks and lectures should be organised in schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution and the role of children and the younger generation in preventing it.
  • Special public awareness campaigns, in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial occasions where firecrackers are likely to be used, should be carried out.

The Court also declared that these guidelines were issued in exercise of the power conferred on it under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, and consequently they were the law of the land, applicable and in force until modified by the Court or superseded by appropriate legislation.

For the Common Man

A landmark case in Environmental Law, it has made creating noise at night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) a punishable offence, and has also laid down stringent guidelines for reducing noise pollution in the country as a whole, with regard being paid to each noise-creating source in particular. The Court has played its part; however, much depends upon the ability of the executive to get the directions implemented.


Back
Next