The use of sound amplifiers and drums, besides other methods, has become a fashion in various religious celebrations, causing inconvenience to people at large
For ages, religion has been ingrained into the social and cultural fabric of Indian society. It has been written, and said billions of times — and how true is that — that the plurality of India, be it culture, religion, or language, and its co-existence, has been one of the hallmarks of the great Indian tradition — unparalleled anywhere in the world. Over the years, economics has embraced religion enormously, and this coupled with the advent of popular culture, has metamorphosed religious practices and beliefs. To a great extent, this has also led to many aberrations, and the unbearable noise that accompanies many of our religious practices, is one such oddity.
The biggest casualty of this has been the compromise in decorum of community living. Exasperated citizens have knocked on the doors of the judiciary, and our courts, including the Supreme Court, have taken a nuanced view of the matter, and issued rulings aimed at curbing the sound menace.
In a seven-page judgement (2000) of the Supreme Court on a petition by Church of God (Full Gospel) in India versus KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others, Justice MB Shah and Justice SN Phukan had dwelt on the subject and looked into questions, like whether a particular community or sect of that community, can claim a right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion; and whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by the use of microphones and loudspeakers that disturbs peace or tranquility of a neighbourhood, should be permitted.
They had observed that, indisputably, no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums. The Justices said, “In our view, in a civilised society, in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted.”
In a very fine articulation to those who would want to pursue noisy religious practices in the garb of a fundamental right, the court noted, “Undoubtedly, one can practice, profess and propagate religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, but that is not an absolute right. The provision of Article 25 is subject to the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution…it cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything he does not like or does not require.”
While this and similar other rulings come as a big comfort to many, the ground situation remains different, largely because of the obvious compulsions of those who are supposed to enforce it — the police. In this scenario, the citizens take to the streets. A case in point is Prabhakar Rao, a retired gynecologist in Andheri in Mumbai, whose Association of Medical Consultants has been campaigning against noise pollution. In 2003, anti-noise campaigners YT Oke, Sumaira Abdulali and two groups, including the Association of Medical Consultants, filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, asking for the demarcation of silence zones in the city. Following an order from the court, the municipal corporation identified areas around educational, medical and religious institutions, where noise rules were to be strictly enforced without any concession. In Delhi, the court has said that the speakers have to face the shrine and not buildings in the neighbourhood. But nothing has changed.
Even as ground realities defy the numerous rulings of the courts, it may be time for citizen groups to mount pressure on the Government to make stricter laws on noise pollution, including those that strengthen enforcement agencies' hands. Else, the modern Indian religious cacophony will continue to get louder.
(The writer is a strategic communications professional)