Ban Loudspeakers Across Religions as They Harm Public Health: Justice Nariman

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman has called for a nationwide prohibition on the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes, cautioning that such practices directly endanger public health.

 

He observed that expressions of faith through loudspeakers and bell ringing interfere with citizens’ right to health and peaceful living, and should be curtailed equally across religions to avoid perceptions of bias.

 

“I find today every faith seems to get louder in its protestations and is making the Lord deaf. I find today that either a person is screaming in a microphone from a mosque or another is banging temple bells. All this must stop because this creates noise pollution. And if it creates noise pollution, it is covered by health primarily straight away. And every State should at the earliest according to me first ban loudspeakers and ban this kind of thing this bell ringing etc which disturbs people early morning and disturbs people’s sleep. So it is again something that is that the State must take into its hand and do it down the board so that again you can’t say that you are favoring X or favouring Y. You stop it completely. You can have loudspeakers in auditoriums like this where everybody wants to hear somebody and nothing goes out. But you can’t have loudspeakers outside which creates a nuisance,” Justice Nariman said.

 

He was speaking at the KM Bashir Memorial Lecture in Thiruvananthapuram recently.

 

Placing his remarks in constitutional context, he noted that the Preamble begins with “We the people of India,” which embraces all citizens, not just the majority or any one group.

 

“We the people of India does not mean we the majority of the people of India or we the adult male population of India. It is we the people. We are therefore all the people of India. That is something that must never be forgotten,” he said.

 

Justice Nariman stressed that secularism is central to fraternity and identified three strands in the Constitution: no state religion, no discrimination by the state on religious grounds, and equal rights for every individual to practise their faith.

 

He cited Article 25 as guaranteeing freedom of conscience and pointed out that judicial interpretation in Reverend Stainislaus (1977) restricted the right to propagate religion by excluding voluntary conversion, a position he urged the Supreme Court to reconsider.

 

He outlined five constitutional limits on religious freedom: public order, morality, health, regulation of secular activities linked to religion, and social welfare or reform. He underlined that health alone justified restrictions on noise pollution caused by religious practices.

 

Justice Nariman then focused on fraternity, describing it as the “single pivot on which everything else works.”

 

He said fraternity was crucial to protect both individual dignity and national unity. He criticised distortions in history textbooks that weakened fraternity and urged citizens to see fundamental duties, especially promoting harmony and respect for composite culture, as obligations that could be judicially enforced.

 

To explain this, he referred to the national flag, recounting its evolution and the symbolism of its colours. He said the white band represents peace and harmony among faiths, while the Ashoka Chakra stands for dharma and moral law.

 

“Every time you people see the national flag, never forget that fraternity is the first thing that stares you in the face. And remember the white portion is the portion which speaks of everybody’s harmony. And the chakra is as to how you achieve it. You achieve it by serving dharma. And you serve dharma by studying everybody else’s faith and not denigrating it,” Justice Nariman said.

 

He also discussed his recent book An Ode to Fraternity, with forewords by the Dalai Lama and Cardinal Oswald Gracias, highlighting how world religions ultimately converge on moral living and the pursuit of happiness. He warned against fanaticism, describing fanatics as people who fail to understand their own faith or respect others’.

 

Justice Nariman concluded by urging citizens to treat fraternity as a living constitutional value beyond governments and politics.

 

“Governments may come, governments may go. Constitutional values endure. That you have to remember first and second that every time you see your national flag never forget to remind yourself of the cardinal virtue of treating every other citizen as your brother. That is at the center of the flag. That is the basis of the flag and that is the basis of the Constitution. Because in the ultimate analysis, the stakes are very high. The stake is nothing less than the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of this great country,” he said.

 

 

For any enquiries please fill out this form, or contact info@thelawreporters.com and  Follow  The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels