Blanket Ban on DJ Sound System challenged in Bombay HC [Read Petition]

Ahead of the Navaratri festivities next month, an association of sound and lighting professionals has challenged the Maharashtra government’s blanket ban on the use of Dolby and DJ sound system in public before the Bombay High Court..In response, the Bench of Justices SS Kemkar and MS Karnik has directed the State to clarify whether or not such a legal ban exists..The Professional Audio and Lighting Association (‘PALA’), through Advocate SB Talekar, has contended that no such blanket prohibition exists under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) 2000 (‘Noise Pollution rules’)..As per PALA’s petition, the Supreme Court and the High Court have only passed orders to ensure that the Noise Pollution rules are adhered to. There has been no direction to impose a total ban on the use of such sound systems..Rather, the petitioners point out that Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution Rules only mandates that the noise produced by such sound system should not exceed 10 decibels above the ambient noise standards of the area where it is used..However, the State Pollution Control Board and the police authorities have been acting on the assumption that there exists a total ban on the use of sound systems, particularly “DJ” sound systems..To this end, the police authorities had also directed that Dolby sound systems are not provided for use by Ganesh Mandals during the Ganesh Chathurthi festivities..General directions were issued intimating that the use of “DJ” systems are banned in the State. This, the petitioners point out, was based on the misconception that “DJ” is the term used to denote pre-recorded sound systems, whereas the term actually stands for Disc Jockey i.e. a person who operates the sound system..The State authorities had also made public appeals against the use of sound systems, warning that severe penalties await those who make use of such sound systems in public. .However, the petitioners have challenged this total ban, arguing that it is based on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2005 judgment in In re Noise Pollution..As highlighted in the petition, the State is clamping down on the pre-recorded sound systems employed by the entertainment industry without any legal mandate to do so. On the other hand, there has been no effort to reduce ambient noise levels in the State, even though the Noise Pollution rules provide for the same..The Noise Pollution rules lay down certain standards to be maintained in this respect. However, it is pointed out that these standards have remained in the books..“…the actual ambient noise standards is exceeding day by day due to various factors like,increasing population, increasing number of vehicles, religious ceremonies, cultural events, sports activities, deforestation, use of fire-crackers etc.“.It has been argued that the ban on sound systems has been devised to cover up the failure of the State to control ambient noise levels..“It is the lethargy and callousness in implementation of the limits of ambient noise levels at all places and levels which are sought to be covered up by entirely banning the sound systems.“.The petitioners have also raised the objection that the rigorous treatment meted out to them is not applicable for other industries, manufacturing units, firecrackers, vehicular noise pollution etc..Further, the petitioners have argued that Article 14 of the Constitution is violated given that an artificial differentiation is drawn between banned pre-recorded sounds (“DJ” sounds systems) and sounds made by other music instruments..Ultimately, it is argued that the classification has boiled down to a test of how wealthy the target audience is..“It is the target audience in large or small event that is different leading to differential treatment. While the large events are attended by the wealthy by paying huge amounts for the entry, the smaller events are used in the functions of the middle class who prefer pre-recorded music or smaller scale of live performances owing to its affordability. .The differential treatment in light of this distinction implies that equality as enshrined under the Preamble as well as Article 14 of the Constitution is to be tested on the anvil of wealth and money rather than reasonableness.“.To further buttress this argument, the petitioners point out that conical speakers are allowed to be used at political and religious events, even without a licence and despite a clear ban on the same..Yet another grievance raised is that the authorities do not employ scientific methods to measure the noise levels emitted by the sound systems, in contravention of the Noise Pollution rules..Furthermore, the State agencies are yet to comply with Central Pollution Board protocols issued from time to time for monitoring ambient noise levels. The State agencies are yet to appoint experts or train existing officers to properly measure the same accordingly..In this backdrop, the petitioners have challenged Maharashtra’s drive against “DJ” sound systems as violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution as well..It has been prayed that the Court declare that there is no total ban on pre-recorded sound systems and that the petitioners’ applications for using such sound systems during the upcoming Ganesh Chaturthi and Navaratri celebrations be accepted..Inter alia, it has also been prayed that the Court issue guidelines on the permissible use of the sound systems in public and the manner in which the authorities should act when complaints are made against noise pollution on their account..After hearing initial submissions, the Court has also queried whether the association would give an undertaking that they would abide by the applicable rules..The matter will be taken up next on September 14..Read the Petition: