Sleep is citizen's basic right, says India's apex court

New Delhi, Dec 7 (PTI) Holding that "sleep" is a basic
necessity and biological need of life, the Supreme Court of
India has upheld the decision of the government of the western
Indian state of Maharashtra to deny permission for conduct of
music functions or cultural programmes at venues which are
within 100 metres of educational institutions and hospitals.

The permission was denied by the authorities on the
ground that the venue was located within 100 metres of an
educational institution and a hospital.

A bench of Justices S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph upheld
the validity of an order passed by the Maharashtra government
denying permission to Farhd K Wadia, Chief Executive Officer
of 'Power Productions', a leading audio studio in Mumbai, for
conducting a music event at an open air auditorium near a
school.

"Interference by the court in respect of noise pollution
is premised on the basis that a citizen has certain rights
being 'necessity of silence','necessity of sleep', 'process
during sleep' and 'rest', which are biological necessities and
essential for health. Silence is considered to be golden.

"It is considered to be one of the human rights as noise
is injurious to human health which is required to be preserved
at any cost," the apex court observed.

Wadia had earlier approached the High Court challenging
the authorities decision, but his plea was dismissed,
following which he filed the SLP (special leave petition) in
the apex court.

The company does soundtracks for movies, ad films, etc.

The apex court rejected Wadia's contention that the state
government has not declared the said zone as a silence zone,
while denying him the permission.

Interpreting the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control)
Rules, 2000 framed by the Central government, the apex court
said the legislation empowers the government to regulate the
use of loudspeakers, amplifiers and other such instruments
within 100 metres of educational institutions, hospitals,
religious institutions and even courts.

The bench cited a number of earlier judgements of various
High Courts and the Supreme Court wherein courts have upheld
the validity of restrictions imposed by the authorities on the
use of public address systems.

Hence, it found no merit in the appeal of Wadia.