Summary:
“Just because some other persons are violating rules by creating noise pollution, the petitioners cannot contend that they may also be permitted to violate the rules,” they said. “When laws are in place and rules framed, they must be strictly followed,” the court said.The judges said the contention that the petitioners are entitled for protection under Article 14 (Right to Equality) is not correct. He said that in the past, the vast majority of offences registered for causing noise pollution were in respect of DJ systems.The bench said it was not willing to accept arguments by PALA’s advocate Satish Talekar that ambient noise levels in many cities have exceeded permissible limits and therefore DJ systems should be permitted, which cause only a marginal increase in the ambient permissible limits. Similarly, on the association’s contention that Article19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees freedom to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business, the court said “but obviously such trade or business should be in conformity with law”. “In the absence of any pleadings and reliable material, we are afraid we cannot, prima facie, form an opinion that the impugned decision of the authorities need to be stayed.”The judges said the petition challenges the ban on DJ and Dolby systems and therefore they are not dealing with the petitioner’s contention that there are other instruments which cause noise beyond permissible limits..