Thunderous devotion

As the calendar rolls towards a long season of festivals, the Supreme Court comes to the aid of all who fear unbearable noise levels. Broadcasting religious services into public spaces through microphones and loudspeakers is not a fundamental right, the court says. That should cover all forms of religious services: discourses, prayers, vocal and instrumental music. There is no infringement of constitutional rights, therefore, when local authorities place restrictions on the use of loudspeakers or services in public places. It should have been obvious that the freedom to practise one8217;s own religion does not mean the freedom to assail everyone8217;s eardrums with the sound of one8217;s own piety. But a surprising number of people in the country do think they have a god-given right to blast the neighbourhood with sound, to obstruct the traffic and to inconvenience the general public. So the court8217;s clarifications are necessary and timely.

On this occasion it was a little known Christian community, the Church of God Full Gospel, that claimed the right under Article 25 to broadcast sermons through microphones at full volume. At one time or another, Hindu and Muslim groups have also argued for similar rights. This has led, sometimes with tragic consequences, to competitive assertions of the right to practise their religions in public places. To everyone the Supreme Court says firmly, in the interests of public order and health reasonable restrictions can be placed on the public celebration of religion. All sensible people will welcome the ruling. Before peace and quiet breaks out it will be necessary for local authorities, the police and magistrates, to take a similarly sensible view of the matter. That may not always be the case. But now at least, armed with the court8217;s ruling objectors can insist on low volumes and on loudspeakers being switched off at a reasonable hour.

It is a pity that disputes over noise levels, in which all that is needed for a solution is a bit of collective common sense, should have to go to India8217;s overburdened courts. Why cannot neighbourhoods agree on when loudspeakers can be used and when they should be switched off instead of the police having to intervene? Religion is rarely treated as a private affair to be observed privately within the home or community. When it is treated as a means of asserting identity as it often is, it requires loud public expression. It is curious that in the transition from village to city religious practices have changed so little. Even though the old ways are unsuitable in the congested, mixed community, fast-paced city, they persist. Practices adapted for the new environment have still to be evolved. Perhaps the day will come when the faithful will be summoned to prayer not from the minaret or the belfry but through the Net in the privacy of their homes. Perhaps new technology will enable thousands to sing and praytogether as thunderously as they wish without a sound filtering out to the world. Until then, care must be taken to make sure one person8217;s devotion does not become another8217;s discomfort, that while some pray others can sleep.