Copyright infringement not intended 

Picture Courtesy: Indian Express

Context:

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to implement an in-built mechanism to control decibel levels in loudspeakers, public address systems (PAS), and other sound-emitting gadgets used at places of worship or institutions, regardless of religion.

Background of the case

The plea was filed by the Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association. The petitioners alleged that the police failed to take action against religious places, such as mosques, using loudspeakers beyond the permitted hours and decibel limits.

The residents complained about noise pollution caused by loudspeakers at mosques and madrasas, especially in the early hours of the morning (around 5 am) and during festivals, when loudspeakers were used until late at night (1:30 am). Despite several complaints to local police, no action was taken.

Court Judgement

The Bombay High Court stated that the use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion. 

It emphasized that no individual or group has the right to disturb public peace, and therefore, protection under Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution is not applicable to violators.

The court observed that noise is a significant health hazard and a concern in a cosmopolitan city like Mumbai, where people of various religions live together. It stated that public interest requires strict enforcement of noise pollution rules to protect residents from health and safety risks.

The court directed the Mumbai Police to use mobile applications for measuring decibel levels. Initially, police could issue warnings and impose fines on offenders. For repeated violations, Police could seize the equipment and potentially cancel the licenses of institutions using such devices.

What is the Essential Practices Doctrine?

The Essential Practices Doctrine originates from B.R. Ambedkar's speech in the Constituent Assembly. Ambedkar aimed to draw a clear line between religion and the secular, arguing that the state should intervene in religious matters that are not essentially religious.

The doctrine was solidified in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case, where the Supreme Court ruled that "religion" includes rituals and practices integral to the religion. The Court introduced the "essential religious practices" test to decide what parts of a religion are essential. This test is based on the doctrines of the religion itself.

How has the Court interpreted the Essential Religious Practices Test in the Past?

• Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986): The Court allowed Jehovah's Witnesses students to abstain from singing the national anthem as it contradicted their religious beliefs.
• Ananda Marga Case (2004): The Supreme Court ruled that the Ananda Marga sect could not perform Tandava dance on public streets as it was not an essential practice of the sect.
• Multani Case (2006, Canada): The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a Sikh student's right to wear a Kirpan in class, affirming that religious expression should be respected unless it causes harm.
• Muslim Airman Case (2016): The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a Muslim airman for keeping a beard, differentiating it from the practice of Sikhs who are allowed to keep a beard.

Way Forward

The state and the Court must respect the integrity of religious groups and treat their internal religious practices as determinative. However, if a religious practice excludes individuals, undermines their dignity, or restricts access to basic goods, then the freedom to practice religion must be overridden by the constitutional values of equality and justice.

Must Read Articles: 

RELIGIOUS PRACTICES V/S LAW

THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN INDIA

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Source: 

INDIAN EXPRESS