Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Tuesday (September 23) announced that the deadline to use loudspeakers in Ramlila performances, Durga Puja pandals and other cultural festivities will be extended until midnight, providing a two-hour extension from the usual 10 pm cut-off time for the use of loudspeakers in public.Law on loudspeakersThe Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are the primary regulation governing noise pollution. These rules provide a detailed framework for regulating noise from various sources, including loudspeakers.Rule 5(1) states that a loudspeaker or a public address system cannot be used without obtaining written permission from a designated authority. Crucially, Rule 5(2) imposes a blanket ban on their use during night hours, defined as the period between 10 pm and 6 am, except in closed premises like auditoriums, conference rooms, and banquet halls for internal communication.The rules prescribe maximum permissible noise levels for different areas, categorised as industrial, commercial, residential and silence zones. For residential areas, the daytime limit (6 am to 10 pm) is 55 decibels (dB) while that for nighttime is 45 dB. For context, a whisper is about 30 dB, while normal conversation is about 60 dB.Gupta’s announcement is enabled by a specific provision in the rules. Rule 5(3) allows a state government to permit the use of loudspeakers between 10 pm and 12 midnight on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion for a limited duration, not exceeding 15 days in a calendar year.Therefore, the Delhi government’s decision to extend the deadline is legally permissible, provided it is confined to the 15-day annual limit specified in the rules.Court rulingsOver the past two decades, the Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly adjudicated on the issue of noise pollution. The judiciary has consistently prioritised the right to a peaceful environment over the use of sound amplification for religious purposes.Story continues below this adIn a judgement in 2000 concerning the use of loudspeakers by a church in Chennai, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others. It emphatically stated that the use of loudspeakers could not be claimed as a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution, which provides the fundamental right to freedom of religion. The court observed that “in a civilised society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children… cannot be permitted.”However, it was in a judgement in 2005 that the apex court laid the bedrock for modern noise pollution jurisprudence. In a suo moto case — that is, one initiated by the court on its own accord — the Supreme Court declared that the right to a peaceful and noise-free environment is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. It held that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) does not grant anyone the right to force an unwilling audience to listen to them through “aural aggression”. This ruling established the strict 10 pm-6 am ban on loudspeakers in public places.Just a few months later, though, the same Bench of the Supreme Court heard a specific challenge to the constitutional validity of the 15-day midnight exception under Rule 5(3). The Court upheld the rule, calling it a “limited power” necessary for a country with diverse cultures and religions. However, it laid down strict conditions for its use.The power to grant exemption is conferred only on the state government and cannot be delegated to any other authority.The exemption must be for the entire state as a unit and different dates could not be specified for different districts.The scope of the exemption could not be widened by increasing the number of days beyond 15 or the duration beyond two hours (10 pm to midnight).The exemption would not apply to designated ‘silence zones’ — areas within 100 metres of hospitals, educational institutions and courts.Following the Supreme Court’s lead, various High Courts have strictly enforced the Noise Rules, often going further to prescribe practical measures for implementation.Story continues below this adIn 2016, the Bombay High Court reiterated that the use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion. It pulled up the state government for its “very casual” approach to implementation and failing to procure the necessary number of decibel meters for the police.In 2018, the Karnataka High Court showed a nuanced application of the rules. When police restricted a music school from using loudspeakers for an all-night concert inside a banquet hall, the court allowed their use within the closed premises during prohibited hours, citing the exception in Rule 5(2). But it placed the strict condition that noise levels at the boundary of the venue does not exceed the prescribed limits.In a 2019 judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a detailed set of mandatory directions for Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh: it directed state authorities to ensure no loudspeaker is used by any religious body without written permission, even during the day. It also mandated creating a common helpline and directed that the identity of complainants be kept confidential to protect them.Also Read | Why Bombay HC said use of loudspeakers is not essential to religionIn a judgement in 2020, the Allahabad High Court made a crucial distinction while hearing a plea for using loudspeakers for azaan, the Islamic call to prayer. It held that while azaan is an essential part of Islam, its recitation through loudspeakers is not. It affirmed that the use of microphones was a recent development and not a historical part of the religious practice.Story continues below this adThe most recent significant ruling in this regard came from the Bombay High Court in January. Hearing a petition from residents against noise from mosques, the court prescribed a practical, graded penalty system for enforcement:First offence: A caution.Repeat violations: Fines imposed on the concerned trusts or organisations.Continued violations: Seizure of loudspeakers and cancellation of licences.Significantly, the court introduced the concept of cumulative noise levels. It ruled that if several religious places in a vicinity use loudspeakers, authorities must consider the combined sound level of all amplifiers, not just the noise from an individual source.The court also suggested modern enforcement solutions, such as directing police to use decibel-level measuring mobile applications and asking the state to consider an inbuilt mechanism for “calibration or auto-fixation” of the decibel limit in loudspeakers.