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










