Tags:
Journalism of Courage
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.
