Open Access Research Article
NOISE POLLUTION CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDIES
Published Paper
Article Details
NOISE POLLUTION CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES
AND AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDIES
AUTHORED BY - VAIBHAV VIKRAM SINGH
& DR. SATISH CHANDRA
Abstract
With the remarkable growth of science
and technology, today's metropolitan centres have grown not just in size but
also in terms of the living conditions they give. This has resulted in a
growing public awareness of noise pollution, which has become a part of our
daily life. Studies have been carried out to determine the extent of the damage
caused by noise from various natural and man-made sources. One of the modern
world's scourges is noise. It's an unwelcome byproduct of our technological
culture, and it's becoming a more harmful and disruptive pollution in the
environment. In the fight against air and water pollution, there is a growing
public awareness and even some progress, but a third threat-noise pollution-has
only just begun to garner attention. People's daily lives have been invaded by
undesired and disruptive sounds since the industrial revolution, particularly
in urban surroundings. Traffic noise, which was previously tolerated without
complaint, has recently become intolerable. Indeed, noise has come to be
related with an individual's mental, physical, emotional, and psychological
well-being, whether they be humans or animals. Noise might be regarded an
assault on an individual in legal terms.
Key Words: Noise pollution, environmental
legislation, pollution-related laws.
Introduction
Unwanted or offensive sounds that
intrude unnecessarily into our regular activities are referred to as noise
pollution. It comes from a variety of places, the majority of which are linked
to urbanization: road, air, and rail transportation; industrial noise; and
neighbourhood and recreational noise. High noise levels are caused by a number
of variables, including: a) rising population, especially where it leads to
increased urbanisation and urban consolidation. Noise levels are often
increased as a result of activities related with city living. b) Increased
traffic volumes on the road, rail, and air. The public's awareness of
environmental noise has grown, and citizens now demand the federal, state, and
municipal governments to lower noise levels.[1]
Although noise is a serious environmental issue, quantifying the expenses
associated with it is often challenging. In a 1995 OECD assessment on the
social costs of land transport, four areas of impact from transportation noise
were identified.[2]
a) Productivity losses due to poor
concentration, communication difficulties/fatigue due to insufficient rest
b) Health care costs to rectify loss of
sleep, hearing problems or stress
c) Lowered property values d) Loss of
psychological well-being.
The economic costs of noise can
include costs associated with building noise barriers alongside major transport
routes, insulating affected buildings and the lowering of property prices for
residential and commercial buildings.
Existing Legislative Noise Control
Measures
"A person is guilty of public
nuisance if he does any act or makes any illegal omission that causes any
common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or to the people in general
who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury,
obstruction, danger, or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any
public right,".[3]
"Whoever commits a public
nuisance in any circumstance not otherwise penalised by this Code shall be
penalised with a fine which may extend to Rs 200/-".[4]
The Magistrate has the jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure
Code to issue a conditional order compelling the person who is causing the
nuisance to remove it.
Major Noise Sources
Congestion on the highways One of the
most common and growing environmental issues in cities is road traffic noise.
It was calculated in 1991 that in Sydney:
a)
1.5
million households were exposed to OECD-defined as unpleasant outdoor traffic
noise levels (between 55 and 65 dB (A)), affecting sleep and amenity.
b)
It
was predicted that 350,000 of these residents are exposed to noise levels that
are considered inappropriate (higher than 65dB(A)), limiting their behaviour
patterns and causing health impacts (ABS 1997b).
The NSW Road Traffic Noise Taskforce
reported in 1994 that road traffic noise has become a major urban environmental
problem because:
a)
Historically,
land use planning and transportation planning have not been well integrated,
allowing residential developments and major transportation corridors to be built
in close proximity without appropriate buffer zones or building treatment.
b)
There
has been a growing reliance on road mobility in the community, as well as a
reluctance to implement or accept partial solutions incorporating increased
public transportation use.
c)
Traffic
on many existing highways that run through densely populated regions has
increased well beyond assumptions set during road planning or construction.
d)
Potential
remedies, aside from new vehicle noise standards, are difficult, often expensive,
and necessitate coordinated measures by multiple authorities and the community.
While the problem is well-known in the community, there is a general lack of
knowledge of its scope and potential solutions.[5]
Preventive Measures
1. Criminal Procedure Code 1973
·
Preventive
Action in Chapter X (sections 133 to 146) of the Criminal Procedure Code of
1973, preventive intervention is provided in the case of public nuisance.
Section 133 of the criminal process code contains the following provisions:
Section 133. Conditional order for nuisance removal: Whenever a District
Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate
specially empowered in his behalf by the State Government considers:
·
That
any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or
from any way, river, or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public:
or
·
Any
building or substance disposal that is likely to cause a firestorm or explosion
should be avoided or stopped: or
·
That
any building, tent, or structure, or any tree, is in such a state that it is
likely to fall and injure people living in the neighbourhood or passing by, and
that, as a result, the removal, repair, or support of such building, tent, or
structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is required: or
·
That
any tank, well, or excavation near to such a route or public place be fenced in
such a way as to prevent public danger; or
·
That
any dangerous animal be destroyed, confined, or otherwise disposed of. In the
case of Virdichand v. Ratlam Municipality[6], the Supreme Court of
India added a new dimension to this provision. 6th. "The criminal
procedure code operates against statutory bodies and others regardless of the
cash in the coffers – otherwise, a profligate statutory body or pachydermia
governmental agency may legally defy duties the law by urging in self-defense a
self-created bankruptcy or preventer expenditure budget," Justice Krishna
Iyyer wrote in his decision. That's not possible." The administrative authorities'
apathy and carelessness in adopting a "non-concern" attitude toward
public difficulties was also highlighted in a Himachal Pradesh High Court
verdict. "When loudspeakers are allowed to annoy the neighborhood, it is
the responsibility of the police and the Deputy Commissioner to take
appropriate action against individuals who are causing a nuisance, not to wait
for the suffering public to protest to the police," the ruling states.
(ii) Preventative Measures In
accordance with Section 1908 of the Civil Procedure Code
Preventive action can also be
initiated under the Civil Procedure Code in the event of a public disturbance.
Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code states that "in case of public
nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public, a suit
for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate
in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted: (a) By the Advocated
General, or (b) With the leave of the court, two or more persons, even though
no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public
nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely This section shall not be
construed to limit or affect any right of action that may exist independently
of its provisions.
Local Enactments
There are numerous local enactments
in various states that include provisions aimed at reducing noise pollution.
Enactments in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan provide for
the regulation of the use and play of loudspeakers. Similarly, the Punjab Gram
Panchayat Act of 1952 requires the Gram Panchayat to make arrangements for
carrying out the Sabha's requirements in the following areas: • Section 19(h):
public health and sanitation, • Section 19(x): measures to promote the moral,
social, and material well-being or convenience of the Sabha's inhabitants.
Thus, a Gram Panchayat can control or outright prohibit the use of
loudspeakers, which is one of the most common sources of noise pollution in
villages, by passing a resolution. Excessive noise can now be proven to inflict
physical and mental harm, directly damaging a person's health, according to
scientific studies. As a result, excessive loudness can be viewed as a kind of
assault and battery in tort law, and the courts must uphold the action.
Title 42 of the United States Code,
Public Health and Welfare (Chapter 65, Noise Control) 4901
The Congress finds:
• that inadequately controlled noise
poses a growing threat to the health and welfare of the nation's population,
particularly in urban areas;
• that the major sources of noise
include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances, and other
commercial products; and
• that, while state and local
governments bear primary responsibility for noise control, the federal
government has a role to play as well. Dealing with substantial noise sources
in commerce, which demand national uniformity of management, necessitates
federal involvement. Remedies for Damages Tort law is a body of law that
governs how people are treated when they are remedies available under tort law,
which is entirely made up by judges, are an important area where judicial
activism can help regulate "noise pollution." Noise pollution is
actionable if it causes annoyance, in which case the tort of "nuisance"
can be pursued. Excessive noise can create physical and emotional injury, which
can have a direct impact on a person's health, according to scientific studies.
As a result, in tort law, excessive loudness can be viewed as a kind of assault
and battery, and the courts must uphold the action.
Legislative Solutions
Law is a tool for social change, and
the legislature is the body in charge of enacting laws. All other authorities,
including as administrative agencies, courts, and other social organisations
involved in environmental protection, obtain their authority from legislation
passed by the legislature and function within the legal framework. As a result,
the most effective strategy to governmental and judicial action against noise
pollution is legislative action. The existing remedies are dispersed across
several statutes and are insufficient and ineffective in dealing with this new
and technical by-product of society's technological growth. Many developing
countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, have
already established comprehensive noise pollution laws. There is no particular
and thorough legislation in India to regulate noise pollution. The Central
Government should pass comprehensive regulations dealing with various types of
noise pollution and how to manage them as soon as possible. Otherwise, the
State has a fundamental obligation to provide conditions in society that allow
a person to fully develop his or her identity. One of these requirements is to
protect the natural environment.
Article 42 of the Constitution refers
to "fair" and "humane" working conditions not only for a
small group of affluent individuals, but also for the vast majority of wage
earners who work in factories and industrial establishments. The implementation
or separate legislation to regulate noise is an urgent necessity in light of
the industrial development increase in automotive traffic on roads and the
ever-increasing views of aircrafts for transportation.
In this regard, the United States
Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 can be used as a model, with
revisions and modifications made as needed to meet the needs of our society.
The act's following aspect can be incorporated:
a. A Central Board for Noise Pollution
Control, comprised of experts from the fields of science, technology, and law,
must be established for the aim of devising noise control policies and
programmes.
b. Similar boards might be established
in all states and metropolitan areas.
c. Noise levels for motor vehicles,
aircraft, industrial establishments, and railways may be set. Similarly, the
use of loudspeakers should be limited, both in terms of noise intensity and the
days of the week when it is authorised.
d. An administrative structure must be
in place with the authority to provide immediate and effective remedy to noise
victims, as judicial remedies are time-consuming and costly. Because of the
technical nature of the problem, specialised and special courts must be
established to deal with matters of noise pollution. It is proposed that a
summary procedure for the trial of such instances be established.
e. Enforcement agencies, including
administrative structures, should be held accountable for failing to carry out
their responsibilities.
f.
A
specific charge on all automobiles and other sources of noise pollution may be
levied in order to generate adequate funding to undertake noise pollution
management programmes and policies.
Collaboration with the General Public
Until the public is aware of their
rights and the many remedies available for enforcing them, the law will stay
dormant. This is especially true in the case of noise pollution, because our
people are still unaware of the serious consequences of noise pollution. The
Indian Constitution also makes it a "fundamental duty" for all
citizens to conserve the environment. "Every citizen must have the duty to
safeguard and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes,
rivers, and wild life, and to have compassion for living beings,"
according to Article 51-A(g).[7] It
will be impossible to achieve any tangible outcomes just by adopting laws,
forming boards, and regulating noise levels. All of these methods will be
accepted and effective if the public is informed of the negative effects of
noise and the different therapies available to control it. People's active
participation and cooperation are critical to the success of any or all
programmes aimed at ensuring a pollution-free environment. The following
measures will be effective in obtaining and securing public cooperation, as
well as making the natural environment a people's movement:
I.
Educating
the public on the harmful effects of noise pollution through mass media such as
cinema, radio, television, and government public relations agencies.
II.
Informing
the public about the many legal and other remedies accessible to them for noise
pollution control.
III.
Using
educational and social groups to actively engage individuals in the
environmental conservation movement.
IV.
Supporting
and funding environmental-oriented social organisations.
Cooperation on a Global Scale
International cooperation can also
play a significant role in delaying the onset of the noise pollution problem.
International initiatives and cooperation must be matched by national action.
This collaboration can benefit underdeveloped countries, which lack the latest
technology and lack the financial resources to run their own research
programmes. International cooperation can aid in noise pollution mitigation in
the following ways. a) Technology exchange with equipment that produces less
noise. b) The exchange of research programmes aimed at diverse noise control
methods. b) An exchange of legal and non-legal approaches for reducing noise
pollution. b) Learning from others' successes and failures. There has already
been a shift in policymakers', legislators', and courts' attitudes in India,
which are the three main institutions for the successful implementation of any
programme. There is now a new Department of the Environment. Water and air
pollution prevention legislation has been enacted.
Conclusions and Suggestions
The following are the conclusions and
recommendations that are appropriate for use in the Indian context:
1. The present enactments in India that
are directly or indirectly related to the problem of noise pollution are
considered to be insufficient to manage it at a national level. As a result,
some particular and effective regulation to limit noise pollution in the
country is required, legislation that is best suited to Indian culture and
social structure.
2. The government's promotion of noise
standards from diverse component sources at specified times of the day.
3. Recognition of citizens' entitlement
to a noise-free environment by some constitutional safeguard.
4. Declaration of noise as a violation
of one's personal liberty and the right to a healthy lifestyle.
5. The establishment of separate courts
for the trial of noise cases.
6. Set volume and pitch levels for
loudspeakers used in religious settings, processions, public gatherings, and
festivals.
7. Payment of compensation to those who
have been harmed.
8. Assign responsibility for rigorous
vigilance on noise sources to local bodies and administrative officials, as
well as teaching them on how to deal with noise violations.
9. Appoint inspectors in local governments
to keep an eye on the spread of noise caused by social activities.
10. All vehicles' pressure horns must be
removed. Public concerns against the use of pressure horns by government
vehicles, administrative authorities, municipal governments, and wealthy individuals.
11. Industrial and noisy trades / works
should be prohibited in residential areas.
[1] Kumar, Brind, Sharad V. Oberoi, and
Akash Goenka. "A brief review of the legislative aspects of noise
pollution." Workshop on Environmental Pollution: Perspectives and
Practices, organized by Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow.
Vol. 53. 2004.
[2] Declaration of
noise as an offence on personal liberty and healthy living.
[3] Section 268 of
the Indian Penal Code 1860.
[4] Section 290 of
the Indian Penal Code 1860.
[5] Kamboj, N.S.
(1993). Control of Noise Pollution. Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi. pp
1-19, 146-151.
[6] AIR 1980 SC
1622
[7] Part-IVA
regarding Fundamental Duties of Citizens.
Article Information
NOISE POLLUTION CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDIES
Authors: VAIBHAV VIKRAM SINGH, DR. SATISH CHANDRA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/08/30
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.