The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Union of India on a public interest litigation (PIL) for removal of loudspeakers from all religious structures on the ground that their use is an encroachment on a person’s “right to be left alone and spatial control” and thus violates the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy.

A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal issued the notice on the PIL filed by social activist Sanjjiiv Kkumaar.

Loudspeakers not intrinsic to any religion.

Sanjjiiv, in his PIL, traced the advent of all religions in India to say, “Hinduism is 4,000 years old, Jainism is 2,600 years old, Buddhism is 2,500 years old, Christianity is 2,000 years old, Islam is 1,400 years old, Sikhism is 500 years old and on another hand, Moving Coil Current Loudspeakers are not even 100 years old.

Thus, it’s beyond doubt, and as facts and truth speaks for itself per se, loudspeakers were never a part of any religion”.

“As loudspeakers is not part of/intrinsic to any of the religions as all religions are 4,000 to 500 years old whereas loudspeaker came into existence in 1924, that is less than 100 years and hence, banning them will not violate Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India,” he said.

The petition also quoted from the Supreme Court’s verdict in Forum, Prevention of Environment and Sound Pollution as: “No religion ever says to force the unwilling to listen to expressions of religious beliefs.”

“This observation of Hon’ble Apex Court is of utmost importance as what Supreme Court says, Loudspeakers do exactly opposite of the same and hence violate fundamental rights of citizens of India,” the PIL said.

Man’s house is his castle, loudspeakers breach right to be left alone.

The petitioner relied heavily on the privacy judgment of the Supreme Court to say that its use is breach of privacy.

“Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a person’s house, where he lives with his family, is his “castle”; it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty,” it said.

It quoted an observation made by Justice DY Chandrachud in the privacy judgment that “one’s house is like a castle to him. If loudspeakers are encroaching one’s right of spatial control (one’s home), one’s right to left alone, then what’s the meaning of fundamental rights? It will be just on paper.

Hence to protect and uphold the fundamental rights of one’s “left alone”, “personhood (physical and mental peace), spatial control – Loudspeakers need to go”.

The petitioner said that use of loudspeakers certainly takes away the right of the citizens to speak with others, their right to read or think or the right to sleep.

“There may be heart patients or patients suffering from nervous disorder may be compelled to bear this serious impact of sound pollution which has had an adverse effect on them. Toddlers, kids are equally affected,” he added..!

~ Abhijeet Rane

Reproduced in public interest by: Vast Media.

________________________________________________________

#RobertReview (Banning Public Loudspeakers in Religious Places):  10 | 10

Just put yourself in the shoes of the normal citizen – would you like Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist prayers blasting loudly near your home at 4:40 am daily. No. You wouldn’t, so why impose on others.

Have compassion for children, old folks, and everyone who has a human right to rest and peace at home.

By blasting religious prayers so early in the morning and several times daily they are pushing Non-Muslims away to form their own communities, hence further segregation instead of integrating harmony and tolerance of multiple religions and cultures.

UPDATE (1st June 2021):

Saudi minister defends order to lower volume on mosque loudspeakers

Islamic Affairs Minister Abdullatif al-Sheikh said the order was in response to citizens’ complaints that the loud volume was causing disturbance to children as well as the elderly.

“Those who want to pray do not need to wait for… the imam’s” call to prayer, Sheikh said in a video published by state television.

The policy follows de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s sweeping liberalisation drive, which has pushed a new era of openness in parallel with what observers call a de-emphasis on religion.

The young prince has eased social restrictions in the ultra-conservative kingdom, lifting decades-long bans on cinemas and women drivers while allowing gender-mixed music concerts and sporting extravaganzas.

The relaxed social norms have been welcomed by many Saudis, two-thirds of whom are under 30, while riling arch-conservatives.



________________________________________________________

SIDENOTE:
Q. Someone asked me where were public loudspeakers blasting at 4:40 am daily?
A. Senayan suburb in Jakarta Selatan (JakSel; 2km from Fairmont Hotel Jakarta) at 4:38 am sharp daily in early Oct 2018.

It was so loud and frightening I thought the loudspeakers were outside my window but actually it was a small neighborhood mosque one block away. I was so shaken that I could not go back to sleep.
 
To transform it into a positive experience, I changed my sleeping patterns to wake up at 4:38 am when I hear it. If I’m out late then I will have 4 hours sleep and hopefully an afternoon nap. That’s why I prefer Bali than Jakarta. Of course if ever I’ll live in Jakarta, I’ll sound-proof my bedroom only.
 
In Malaysia, I try hard to find places to stay that have least or hardly audible morning loudspeakers prayers.
 
In Hong Kong Mosques loudspeakers are never intrusive or loud.
 

Mostly Hong Kongers will leave you alone.

But if you pull a stunt like this – Can you imagine 2 million or 30% Hong Kongers protesting and marching to your doorstep – that’s called liberty and democracy in Hong Kong which our fellow Mainland Chinese don’t have.

The only time public loudspeakers is useful is a TSUNAMI Warning.

__________________________________________________________

Published: 21st July 2019.
Updated: 27th July 2019.

Comment-like-share this important public interest post.