Bombay High Court asks MMRC to list steps taken to curb noise pollution

During the last hearing, the court had directed the MMRC to show the impact that the construction work would have, including how much noise it would create. (Express Photo by Pradeep Kocharekar/File)

The Bombay High Court Friday asked the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRC) about the steps it had taken to set up a mechanism to address the residents’ grievances on noise pollution due to metro construction in the city. The division bench, comprising Justice A S Oka and Justice R I Chagla, was hearing a plea filed by the MMRC to modify an order passed by the high court in August 2017, stating that no construction or ancillary activity could be carried out between 10 pm to 6 am.

During the last hearing, the court had directed the MMRC to show the impact that the construction work would have, including how much noise it would create. On Friday, Advocate General A A Kumbhakoni relied on a judgment passed during the Konkan Railway project and stated that metro rail construction fell under the Indian Railways Act and was hence exempted from the Environment Protection Act and its rules of noise pollution. The bench asked even if such an exemption was applicable, can the state say that it was not responsible for curbing noise pollution. It said the fundamental right under Article 21 also included the right of enjoyment of pollution-free environment, including noise pollution.

“Can a public authority or state say that we are not responsible for curbing noise pollution? We want to know what are the standards applied by the state to decide whether there is noise pollution or not,” the bench asked. Kumbhakoni said the MMRC did not intend to enhance or contribute to noise pollution.

“Is there a forum where citizens can call, email or send a text message or a WhatsApp and someone can respond?… There is no grievance redressal mechanism. Is it not the responsibility of the state to come up with some machinery? Saying that we will reduce noise is not sufficient,” the court said.