Collector, SP will be held liable for noise pollution: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reiterated that the District Magistrate (Collector) and Superintendent of Police (SP) will be held personally responsible if they do not enforce the 2019 directives aimed at controlling noise pollution [Abhilaksh Sachdev v. State of Haryana].

This order was passed over five years after the High Court introduced fifteen guidelines including a complete prohibition on loudspeakers fifteen days prior to and during annual examination in schools.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetrapal directed the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police in Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh to remain vigilant.

The Court also ordered that if any citizen from Punjab, Haryana or Chandigarh reports a violation, the authorities must take swift and appropriate legal action.

"The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are directed to be vigilant and on any violation pointed out by any citizen of any District of the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh, appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,” the Court said.

These observations were made while hearing petitions filed by two individuals, Abhilaksh Sachdev and Karam Singh, alleging noise pollution violations.

The petitioners argued that noise levels exceeded permissible limits, thereby disturbing residents and violating the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. 

The Court observed that noise pollution is a subset of air pollution and falls within the penal provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It granted petitioners the liberty to file a complaint with the police in case of guideline violations. 

 “It would be appropriate that since noise pollution is part of air pollution and is punishable under the penal provisions of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Police Station and lodge an FIR in the event of any violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court,” the Court stated. 

It further clarified that if the police fail to fulfill their statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the aggrieved party may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC [Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. 

The Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the State of Haryana told the Court that offending persons in the present case were summoned and they have assured the authorities that permissible noise levels will be adhered to.

However, the Court expressed concern over the noise pollution complaints from 2021 to May 2024. The Court noted that of the 49 complaints filed, 25 had been resolved, while 24 remained pending.

Hence, it stressed the need to continuously monitor noise pollution.

It also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, underscoring the obligation of police officers to register complaints promptly if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

The Court warned that any failure to act would invite disciplinary action against erring officers. 

Advocates Abhinav Sood, Nitesh Jhajhria, Mehndi Singhal, Rohit Mittal, Nitin Chaudhary, Saurav Bhatia, Kuljinder Singh Billing, and Sylvester Stephen appeared for the petitioners.

Deputy Additional Advocate General (AAG) Deepak Balyan represented the Haryana government while Senior DAG Salil Sabhlok represented the Punjab government.

Advocates Harpriya Khaneka, MS Virk, Mikhail Kad, Ashdeep Singh and Himanshu Arora appeared for various other respondents. Advocate JS Wasu represented an intervenor.

[Read Order]