2014 (11) TMI 1205 - SC - Indian Laws

Attack on appellant s house - right of the Appellant herein to lead an independent and peaceful life - HELD THAT - The law on nuisance is well settled. Nuisance in any form as recognized in the law of Torts-whether private public or common which results in affecting anyone s personal or/and property rights gives him a cause of action/right to seek remedial measures in Court of law against those who caused such nuisance to him and further gives him a right to obtain necessary reliefs both in the form of preventing committing of nuisance and appropriate damages/compensation for the loss if sustained by him due to causing of such nuisance. The Constitution inter alia casts a duty on the State and their authorities to ensure that every citizen s cherished rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution are respected and preserved and he/she is allowed to enjoy them in letter and spirit subject to reasonable restrictions put on them as dreamt by the framers of the Constitution. Intervention of the Court is called for at the instance of citizen when these rights are violated by fellow citizens or by any State agency. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nuisance caused by political and non-political gatherings near the appellant's residence.
2. Non-compliance with the directions issued by the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC).
3. The appellant's right to peaceful living being violated.
4. Implementation of the Supreme Court's guidelines on noise pollution.

Detailed Analysis:

Nuisance Caused by Gatherings:
The appellant, a retired Director General of Police, faced disturbances due to frequent political and non-political gatherings near his residence, which is located near the Vidhan Sabha in Jaipur. These gatherings involved loud protests, use of loudspeakers, and public urination on the appellant's property, causing significant inconvenience and noise pollution.

Non-Compliance with RSHRC Directions:
The appellant initially approached the Commissioner of Police and later the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which forwarded the complaint to the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC). The RSHRC issued specific directions to mitigate the nuisance, including preventing demonstrators from assembling near the appellant's house, restricting the use of loudspeakers, maintaining traffic movement, and stopping police personnel from urinating near the appellant's property. Despite these directions, the state failed to ensure compliance, leading to continued disturbances and an attack on the appellant's house.

Violation of Right to Peaceful Living:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking relief from the disturbances. The single judge of the High Court disposed of the petition, noting that the state had taken necessary steps as per the RSHRC's directions. The Division Bench upheld this decision, relying on the state's assurance of compliance. However, the appellant remained dissatisfied, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Implementation of Supreme Court's Guidelines on Noise Pollution:
The Supreme Court emphasized the well-settled law on nuisance and referenced its previous judgment in Noise Pollution (V), In Re, which laid down guidelines to curb noise pollution. The Court reiterated the need for strict compliance with these guidelines, which include restrictions on the use of loudspeakers and firecrackers, vehicular noise, and public awareness campaigns.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to ensure strict compliance with the guidelines on noise pollution and the steps suggested by the state in their counter affidavit. These steps include appointing a Deputy Commissioner of Police to ensure law and order, placing barricades at appropriate distances, providing mobile public toilets, and regulating permissions for demonstrations. The Court emphasized the state's duty to protect citizens' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and to act in the larger interest of the residents. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the impugned order to ensure better implementation of the suggested measures.