1. CHURCH OF GOD (FULL
GOSPEL) IN INDIA
[PETITIONER]
V
K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
AND OTHERS
[RESPONDENTS]
AIR 2000 SC 2773
(BENCH: M.B.SHAH J, S.PHUKAN J)

2. FACTS
• Church of God (Full gospel) in India (hereinafter
referred as Church) was a prayer hall for the
Pentecostal Christians (a sect of Christians).
• It recited prayers using drums, guitars and other
such musical instruments.
• It also used loudspeakers for the recital of their
prayers.

3. FACTS (CONTD.)
• The church was located in K.K.R.Nagar,
Madhavram High Road, Chennai.
• This locality had a welfare association called
K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association
(hereinafter referred as Welfare Association).
• This welfare association made a complaint to the
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board stating that
the church was causing noise pollution and was
thereby creating nuisance for the residents.

4. FACTS (CONTD.)
• A complaint was also made to the Superintendent
of Police along with the Inspector of Police.
• Based on the complaint The Joint Chief
Environmental Engineer of the board conducted a
test of the ambient noise levels in the area.
• The test revealed that the noise pollution was due
to the vehicular movement on Madhavram High
Road.

5. FACTS (CONTD.)
• The welfare association then filed a criminal
petition in the High Court, seeking an order to
direct the Superintendent of Police and the
Inspector of Police to take action in this regard.
• The Court took into consideration various other
scientific reports and one of its earlier decisions
(Appa Rao,M.S. v Govt. of TN & anr.) wherein
it laid down certain guidelines for controlling
noise pollution. (These guidelines included
control of the use of loudspeakers etc.)

6. FACTS (CONTD.)
• The High Court held that the welfare association
was justified in its demands. The report of the Jt.
Chief Environmental Engineer suggested nothing
more than the fact the Church was not solely
responsible for the noise pollution, but that it added
to the existent nuisance of vehicular noise
pollution.
• The Court directed the SP as well as the Inspector
to take necessary steps to cut down on noise
pollution by taking action against vehicles that
caused noise and to keep the speakers of the
Church at a lower level.

7. FACTS (CONTD.)
• Impugned by this order the Church moved to the
Supreme Court (SLP u/Art.136 of the
Constitution)

8. PARTIES TO THE SUIT
• APPELLANT: Church
• REPONDENTS: Welfare Association,
Jt. Chief Env. Engineer,
Superintendent of Police,
Inspector of Police

9. ISSUES
1. Whether the right to profess and practice
Christianity which is protected under Art. 25
and Art.26 of the Constitution is violated by the
orders of the HC?
2. Whether the judgment relied upon by the HC
(i.e. Appa Rao’s case) empowered the
concerned authorities to interfere in religious
practices?

10. COURTS RESPONSE IN ISSUE 1
• The Court felt that the contention with respect to
the rights under Art.25 and 26 need not be dealt in
detail. It stated that “…no religion prescribes or
preaches that prayers are required to be performed
through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums.
In any case, if there is such practice, it should not
adversely affect the rights of others …”
• It further substantiated that enjoyment of no right
is absolute. Enjoyment of ones rights must be
consistent with the enjoyment of rights by others.

11. COURTS RESPONSE IN ISSUE 2
• The court accepted the view that there was no need to
add religious colour to the issue at hand. Yes, the
judgment relied upon by the HC (Appa Rao’s case)
empowered the concerned authorities to take action
based on the guidelines laid down.
• The guidelines laid down in Appa Rao’s case was
itself based on Madras City Police Act, 1888, Madras
Towns Nuisance Act, 1889, Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed by the
Central Government under the provisions of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5
of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

12. RELEVANCE OF JUDGMENT
It answers a few very important questions:
• In a country having multiple religions and
numerous communities or sects, whether a
particular community or sect of that community
can claim right to add to noise pollution on the
ground of religion?
• Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers
by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to
disturb the peace or tranquility of neighbourhood
should be permitted?

14. “.. in a civilized society in the name of religion,
activities which disturb old or infirm persons,
students or children having their sleep in the early
hours or during day-time or other persons carrying
on other activities cannot be permitted. It should not
be forgotten that young babies in the neighbourhood
are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of
sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student
preparing for his examination is entitled to
concentrate on his studies without their being any
unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours…..

15. ……….Similarly, old and infirm are entitled to enjoy
reasonable quietness during their leisure hours
without there being any nuisance of noise pollution.
Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic
disturbances aswell as children up to 6 years of age
are considered to be very sensible to noise. Their
rights are also required to be honoured.”

16. THANK YOU