Noise annoys: On noise and the Patna High Court order
India must enforce noise pollution regulations uniformly and consistently
In a February 2025 hearing regarding the case of Surendra Prasad vs State of Bihar, the Patna High Court recognized DJ trolleys and loudspeakers as significant contributors to noise pollution in the city. The court criticized the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) for its inability to address the issue, prompting Justice Rajiv Roy to order the board to gather reports from the police on permissions granted to noise source operators and actions taken.
In October, the police reported seizing equipment, levying fines, and taking other actions over three months in several areas of Patna, Barh, and Fatuha, but expressed disappointment in their lack of action in Masaurhi, calling it "unbelievable" that no violations were detected there. During the proceedings, Justice Roy also rebuked police officers for using standard affidavits and other procedural shortcomings.
The High Court's August 14 order expanded on its earlier directives, imposing statewide guidelines on high-decibel noise emissions. Essentially, the court's actions highlight the shortcomings of enforcement efforts, despite the presence of comprehensive legislation. The court emphasized that individuals have the right under Article 21 to be shielded from unlawful noise.
Yet, due to sporadic enforcement becoming the norm, the Patna High Court's role as a temporary regulator is commendable. It is unreasonable to anticipate the public to report every DJ performance or horn blast before the police can react. The court's instructions for authorities to adopt a routine, rather than complaint-driven, enforcement approach and for DJs, sound-system operators, and event venues to register with subdivisional authorities represent proactive measures that are necessary for effective noise pollution regulation.
The court also addressed the practical aspects of noise violations, such as loudspeakers playing past 10 p.m., by directing them to cease at 9.55 p.m., giving operators time to stop rather than permitting the seemingly minor violation of continuing past the legal limit. Noise pollution is often a consequence of social events like festivals, weddings, political campaigns, and religious gatherings, and enforcing regulations can create tensions with people who feel their cultural practices should be unrestricted.
Moreover, governments have a motivation to maintain favorable relations with their constituents, often leading them to overlook or downplay issues that could provoke opposition. Nevertheless, requiring operators to register their activities enables authorities to consistently regulate them, instead of sporadically targeting specific instances.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the High Court's recent order will be determined by whether the state adopts a consistent enforcement habit.
Written by urgent.news from The Hindu - Sci-Tech's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
