Following the death of a Class 2 student allegedly due to loud music during a procession in Uttar Pradesh’s Balrampur district last month, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the incident, asking who is responsible for enforcing rules on loudspeakers and other sound systems.
The girl had collapsed in her classroom on September 22 while the procession was passing outside the school. The child was rushed to the hospital where she was declared dead on arrival.
The school authority had lodged an FIR alleging high decibel DJ music was being played, causing the child’s death. The DJ owner, operator were arrested and the local police outpost in-charge was suspended.
Hearing a bunch of PILs related to noise pollution, a division bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla, in its September 28 order, stated that it has not drawn any conclusion on what caused the child’s death.
“… But the fact that loudspeakers or music instruments were being played at a very high pitch and immediately thereafter, the child collapsed in the classroom, persuades us to take cognizance of the matter as noise pollution is now becoming a menace.
“In spite of this menace having been noticed and acknowledged by the legislature under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the rule-making authority under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, it seems to continue unabated,” the court said.
The bench observed that noise pollution violations occur every day on the streets.
Story continues below this ad
“… It is common knowledge. The question to be considered is who is responsible for curbing and curtailing this menace and what is being done in this regard? If, in spite of steps taken, this menace is not being curtailed, stopped or curbed, as the case may be, some mechanism needs to be put in place with regular monitoring… [for] compliance of statutory provisions…,” it said.
The bench observed that this will also entail spreading awareness among citizens “as lack of it is one of the main reasons for violations”. “… How to do it, is the job of the government for which we require its assistance and that of its authorities…,” the bench said.
If violations continue despite measures being taken, “then they have to be made accountable. Rules, 2000, provides for a penalty which could be imposed in terms of the Act, 1986,” the bench observed.
Listing the matter for October 12, the bench directed that the heads of the UP Home Department, Transport, Forest and Environment, Housing and Urban Planning, and Urban Development departments, be arrayed as opposite parties.
Story continues below this ad
It included the Director General of Police, Police Commissioner (Central), UP Pollution Control Board, Lucknow Police, and Municipal Commissioners, Vice-Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority, and the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Chief Medical Officer of Balrampur district as parties.
The court also directed that the school authorities be made an opposite party so they can assist it in examining the circumstances surrounding the child’s death.
The court issued a caution in its order, stating, “… we hope and trust that the parents of the child and… school authorities will not be pressured and the functioning of the school shall not be interfered unnecessarily by any person or authority of the State.”
