Right to peaceful living reinforced through strict noise control and nuisance regulation to protect residents from recurring disturbances.

Recurring noise, protest activity, loudspeakers, barricading and related disturbances were treated as public nuisance capable of impairing the right to peaceful living and residence under Article 21. The Supreme Court's noise-control principles and the binding effect of earlier directions were applied to support protective and remedial intervention. Existing remedial measures were found inadequate unless strictly and continuously implemented, so the State was required to ensure effective regulation of demonstrations, loudspeakers, sanitation and barricading through concrete enforcement by the concerned authorities. The impugned order was modified and additional enforceable directions were issued to secure peaceful enjoyment of residence and curb nuisance in the area.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to judicial directions for effective control of noise pollution and other recurring disturbances affecting peaceful enjoyment of his residence near the Assembly area. (ii) Whether the existing directions and the State's remedial measures required further modification and stricter enforcement.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to judicial directions for effective control of noise pollution and other recurring disturbances affecting peaceful enjoyment of his residence near the Assembly area.

Analysis: Persistent protest activity, use of loudspeakers, barricading, and related disturbances were treated as forms of nuisance capable of affecting personal and property rights. The settled law on noise pollution and nuisance was applied, along with the citizen's protection under Article 21 and the binding nature of the earlier directions on noise control. The Court also recognized that the constitutional duty of the State extends to protecting citizens from avoidable interference with peaceful living.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to protective and remedial directions.

Issue (ii): Whether the existing directions and the State's remedial measures required further modification and stricter enforcement.

Analysis: The earlier directions issued by the human rights commission and the measures stated by the State were found to be insufficient unless implemented strictly and continuously. The Court emphasized compliance with the existing noise-pollution directions and directed the State to ensure concrete remedial steps, including effective regulation of demonstrations, loudspeakers, barricading, sanitation, and enforcement by the concerned authorities.

Conclusion: Further directions were warranted and the State was required to ensure strict compliance and improved implementation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified, and the appeal succeeded to the extent that additional enforceable directions were issued to secure the appellant's right to peaceful living and to curb nuisance in the area.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recurring noise and public nuisance materially impair the right to peaceful life and residence, constitutional courts may issue and reinforce enforceable directions to ensure strict regulatory compliance by the State.

---