Supreme Court Orders Compliance with Noise Pollution Guidelines, Enhances Safety Measures

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to ensure strict compliance with guidelines on noise pollution and state-suggested steps, appointing a Deputy Commissioner of Police for law and order, placing barricades, providing mobile public toilets, and regulating demonstration permissions. Emphasizing the state's duty to protect citizens' rights under Article 21, the appeal was partially allowed to enhance implementation of measures for peaceful living near the appellant's residence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nuisance caused by political and non-political gatherings near the appellant's residence.
2. Non-compliance with the directions issued by the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC).
3. The appellant's right to peaceful living being violated.
4. Implementation of the Supreme Court's guidelines on noise pollution.

Detailed Analysis:

Nuisance Caused by Gatherings:
The appellant, a retired Director General of Police, faced disturbances due to frequent political and non-political gatherings near his residence, which is located near the Vidhan Sabha in Jaipur. These gatherings involved loud protests, use of loudspeakers, and public urination on the appellant's property, causing significant inconvenience and noise pollution.

Non-Compliance with RSHRC Directions:
The appellant initially approached the Commissioner of Police and later the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which forwarded the complaint to the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC). The RSHRC issued specific directions to mitigate the nuisance, including preventing demonstrators from assembling near the appellant's house, restricting the use of loudspeakers, maintaining traffic movement, and stopping police personnel from urinating near the appellant's property. Despite these directions, the state failed to ensure compliance, leading to continued disturbances and an attack on the appellant's house.

Violation of Right to Peaceful Living:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking relief from the disturbances. The single judge of the High Court disposed of the petition, noting that the state had taken necessary steps as per the RSHRC's directions. The Division Bench upheld this decision, relying on the state's assurance of compliance. However, the appellant remained dissatisfied, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Implementation of Supreme Court's Guidelines on Noise Pollution:
The Supreme Court emphasized the well-settled law on nuisance and referenced its previous judgment in Noise Pollution (V), In Re, which laid down guidelines to curb noise pollution. The Court reiterated the need for strict compliance with these guidelines, which include restrictions on the use of loudspeakers and firecrackers, vehicular noise, and public awareness campaigns.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to ensure strict compliance with the guidelines on noise pollution and the steps suggested by the state in their counter affidavit. These steps include appointing a Deputy Commissioner of Police to ensure law and order, placing barricades at appropriate distances, providing mobile public toilets, and regulating permissions for demonstrations. The Court emphasized the state's duty to protect citizens' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and to act in the larger interest of the residents. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the impugned order to ensure better implementation of the suggested measures.

---