[Religious activities] Act strictly against noise pollution, building violations: Madras High Court to State

While disposing of a plea by a pentecostal church seeking protection to carry out religious activities, the Madras High Court recently directed the State authorities to ensure that noise pollution or violations of building rules on account of religious activities are dealt with strictly (The Pentecostal Mission v. The District Collector)..All religious institutions must adhere to the applicable law for the purpose of conducting their respective religious activities, Justice SM Subramaniam emphasised..Any religious activities affecting the rights of other citizens or any infringement of rights under the Constitution of India must be viewed seriously and appropriate action must be initiated in the event of any complaint, the Court said.."The prevailing situation cannot be brushed aside by this Court. The prevailing situation though painful is to be improved only through effective actions of the Public Authorities. There are many Religious Institutions across the State of Tamil Nadu are violating the noise pollution and Regulation Control Rules and the provisions of the other Statutes. However officials are insensitive in the matter of initiation of actions regarding such violations. Thus, the State is duty bound to sensitise the Authorities for the purpose of protection of the fundamental rights of the citizen of our Great Nation," the order further stated..The Court noted that in India, it is common that many religious institutions cause nuisance and disturbances through the use of loudspeakers, which may, in turn, cause mental agony for others. Peaceful living and health can only be ensured if such irregular and illegal activities are controlled, the Court said..The judge observed that no person can be allowed to commit any illegality merely under the guise of religious rights. Any leniency in this respect could infringe the rights of others and, as such, the State is duty-bound to ensure that religious rights are exercised within Constitutional limits, the Court said.."Merely by creating sentiments in the public or in any religious places, no person can be allowed to carry on any such illegal activities or otherwise. Encroachments, usage of loudspeakers causing disturbance and nuisance are to be viewed seriously and all necessary actions are to be initiated for the purpose of restraining such persons from creating such nuisances or disturbances to the public at large," the order stated..Religious freedoms accorded to citizens under Article 25 of the Constitution of India are subject to public order, morality and health, the Court reiterated. Such rights are also subject to the absolute fundamental right to life under Article 21, the Court said..The judge went on to observe that unity, as envisioned in the Indian Constitution, can only be preserved when the authorities control illegalities that are committed in the name of religion. .He emphasised further that authorities are expected to be cautious while granting permission to construct religious institutions to ensure that the Constitutional rights of others are also respected. Such applications cannot be dealt with casually, the Court said. The judge added that fundamental duties under the Constitution must go hand in hand with rights.."Any religious institution exercising their right must be reminded off their duties towards other citizen, upon whose rights are also to be protected. Unfortunately such situation is not prevailing in this great nation in view of the lackadaisical approach of the authorities in the matter of dealing with the violations and infringement of the rights," the Court remarked..The Court pointed out that while there were several laws in force, the implementation of these laws is lacking. The authorities should be sensitised to implement laws properly and in a non-partisan manner, the Court said.."They can never be allowed to take a partisan attitude in the matter of implementing the laws in force. Non implementation or improper implementation must be viewed seriously as it infringes the rights of the citizen at large ... Enacting the Laws or insufficient implementation of Laws are to be deprecated. Laws are enacted to protect the rights of the citizen under the Constitution. If such Laws are not implemented effectively, then also we are committing an act of unconstitutionality," the order stated..Moreover, the Court also observed that many persons hesitate to make complaints against religious institutions fearing the religious sentiments involved and "due to fanatic approach of few fringe groups." .In this backdrop, the Court called on the State to issue orders to regulate the activities of religious institutions.."One cannot recuse that common men are afraid of giving complaint against religious institutions. In such circumstances, the State being the custodian is duty bound to initiate action under the relevant provisions of law (sic)", the Court said..The judge proceeded to direct the Chief Secretary to the Tamil Nadu government to issue instructions or directions or circulars so that appropriate action is taken against violations of the noise pollution rules and building rule violations when it comes to religious institutions. .All complaints filed on such issues must be immediately acted upon, the Court ordered. Any inaction, negligence or dereliction of duty from the side of the police or other authorities must be viewed seriously and invite disciplinary action, the Court said further..As far as the immediate petition by the pentecostal church was concerned, the Court made it clear that the petitioner may continue its religious activities only after getting proper approval for its building construction, which was stated to have commenced without due and prior approval.."Any unauthorised construction is to be demolished by the Authorities Competent by following the procedures as contemplated," the Court said..The Court also added that the complaints filed against the petitioner must be examined by the authorities..The petitioner-church had submitted that they had a permit in 1998 for their activities. However, the Court was told that they had not obtained due permission before expanding their building. The petitioner had applied for the same in 2014. However, the same was not considered so far, the Court was told. .The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking protection after members claiming to be from the Hindu Munnani opposed construction being carried out by the petitioner. .While the petitioner claimed that such persons had previously also obstructed prayer services, the respondents, including the police, told the Court that the petitioner church had used loudspeakers and conducted prayers throughout the day, thereby disturbing other people in the area..[Read Order]