Church Of God (Full Gospel) In India – Urukirti Gupta

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

CASE LAW ANALYSIS 

Case:- 

Church Of God (Full Gospel) In India  

Vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association 

AIR 2000 SC 2773 

Court name 

Supreme Court of India 

Justice(s)- 

M.B. Phukan., S.N. Shah 

Equivalent Citations 

Equivalent citations: 2000 AIR SCW 3089, 2001 (10) SCC 624, 2000 CRI. L. J. 4022, (2000) 6 SUPREME 46,  (2000) 6 SCALE 163, (2000) 5 ANDH LT 22, (2000) 2 ANDHWR 68, 2001 BLJR 2 806, (2001) 248 ITR 102,  (2000) 4 CURCRIR 35, (2001) 115 TAXMAN 683, (2000) 162 CURTAXREP 487, (2001) 1 SCJ 112, (2000) 3  

EASTCRIC 1065, (2000) 3 KER LT 651, (2000) 6 ANDHLD 40, (2000) 3 CRIMES 196, (2001) 1 GUJ LH  293, (2001) 1 MADLW(CRI) 233, (2000) 19 OCR 504, 2000 (7) SCC 282, (2000) 4 RECCIVR 313, (2000) 29  ALLCRIR 2272, (2000) 4 ALL WC 3019, (2000) 3 CHANDCRIC 26, (2000) 2 ANDHLT(CRI) 262, (2000) 9  

JT 575 (SC), 2003 SCC (CRI) 1035, 2000 SCC (CRI) 1350, (2001) 1 BOM CR 603, AIR 2000 SUPREME  COURT 2773

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

INTRODUCTION 

The introduction begins with the assertion that the issues involved in this appeal are that in a  nation with various religions and networks or groups, no matter whether a specific network or  organization of that network can guarantee option to include clamoring contamination on the  basis of religion. 

The case under analysis here, Church of God (Full Gospel) in India V. K.K.R. Majestic  Colony Welfare Association, 2000, 7 SCC 282, deals with an important issue of noise  pollution especially related to religious activities. Our nation being the home of diversity  which accommodates a lot of religions, how much of safeguards are being provided to the  religions and how are they being utilised. The question here revolves around noise pollution  which was perceived as a means of suppression of the minority community. Without any  doubt, no religion instructs or supports the idea that prayers should be made with the intent to  disturb the peace of others with the use of voice amplifiers or drums. For religious reasons, a  socialized society cannot tolerate activities that frighten people around.¹If one has the  fundamental right to play drums and recite poems at a volume, then the other person also has  the fundamental right to not be disturbed with others religious practice. No fundamental right  is absolute. No practice should adversely affect the right of others. 

¹Tahreem, L. (2023). Case Analysis: Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare  Association, (2000) | Noise Pollution Case. [online] www.legalbites.in. Available at:  

https://www.legalbites.in/environment-law/case-analysis-church-of-god-full-gospel-in-india-v-kkr-majestic colony-welfare-association-970904 [Accessed 22 July. 2024].

2 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

ABSTRACT 

In addition to noise pollution, the case revolves around religion and its customs. The  fundamental question is whether the right to practice and profess Christianity, protected by  Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, has been violated, and the judgment cited by the  High Court does not require the relevant authorities to intervene in religious practices. The  question is whether or not it is allowed. In this case, the court found that there are no  absolute rights in the relevant organized society. The enjoyment of one’s own rights must be  consistent with the enjoyment of the rights of others. When the purpose of the highly free  movement of social forces is not to bring about spontaneous harmony, the state must  intervene to redress the imbalance between competing interests. No right of an individual  can exist in isolation, and the fundamental rights of individuals are subject to the exercise of  other fundamental rights by others, ²as well as the fair and effective exercise of power by  States within the framework of the Directive can coexist in harmony with exercise.  Principles for the benefit of overall welfare. It should be noted that due to the on going “modernization”, pollution has exceeded acceptable limits and therefore needs to be  monitored. Therefore, there is a need to enforce the rules laid down in the Madras City  Nuisance Act, 1889 and the Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which set out  restrictions and principles for the use of loudspeakers and audio amplifiers. Although the  scope of the policy was clear, voters and implementing authorities lacked awareness of the  policy or the obligation to continue implementing it. Noise pollution activities are rampant  in this area, and for some reason, the same rules and principles set forth in many state  police laws do not seem to be implemented. In this case, since there was no oppression of  the minority community, the court rightly ordered the introduction of regulations to control  noise pollution and dismissed the church’s appeal. 

²Universal Declaration of Human rights, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human rights, (Accessed 22 July 2024)

3 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The Church of God (Full Gospel) in India, known as “The Church”, is a place of worship for  Pentecostal Christians. Drums, guitars and other similar instruments were used in worship.  Loudspeakers were also used for worship. The welfare association filed a complaint with the  Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, alleging that the church was creating noise and  disturbing local residents. The welfare group will apply to the High Court for a criminal order  directing the Police Commission and the police to take appropriate action. Following the  complaints, the Council’s head of environment tested the noise levels in the area. The welfare  group will apply to the High Court for a criminal order directing the Police Commission and  the police to take appropriate action. The court directed the SP and inspectors to take  appropriate steps to reduce noise pollution. 

The Church filed an appeal against the judgment. Based on this, respondent No. 1 informed  various officials. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed criminal OP No.61 of 1998 before the  Madras High Court for directions to the respondent No.1 Welfare Society. No. 5 and No. 6 to  act on the writ filed by respondent No. 4. The Church’s counsel argued before the High Court  that the petition was filed to the detriment of restricting the religious activities of the minority  churches. The learned Judge referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Appa Rao,  M.S. V. Government of Tamil Nadu and another (1995) Specific guidelines were laid down  to control noise pollution³. In Appa Raos case guidelines were provided to the government to  control noise pollution and use of the application and information. In that case, the court  found that the claimant’s claim of noise pollution was justified, and the authorities concerned  were turning or made to turn by the higher powers a Nelsons eye to the violation of rules and  regulations in these matters.⁴ 

³“CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA Vs. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND  OTHERS.” M B Shah, J. & S.N. Phukan, J., https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/17134.pdf (Accessed 22 July 2024) 

⁴“CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA VS K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND  OTHERS.” Church of God (Full Gospel) in India vs K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare … on 30 August, 2000, Indian  kanoon , indiankanoon.org/doc/88766/. (Accessed 22 July. 2024).

4 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE LAW 

Introduction  

The Church of God (Full Gospel) In India. V. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association,  2000 responded to inquiries about a country with multiple religions and communities, and no  religion wishes to disturb the serenity of others. Disturbing people in the name of religion is  not tolerated in any civilized country. Everyone has the right to enjoy reasonable quietness⁵. This case involves a number of acts, one of which is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.  – There are rules that restrict noise pollution levels.  

– These are framed to specify permitted noise levels in specific zones.  

– In a structured society, rights are linked to responsibilities towards others.  

Background 

There was a request by special leave is filed against the judgment which was passed by the  Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998. The appealing party here was the  Church of God which was put at K.K.R. Nagar, Madhavaram high road, Chennai. Typically,  a prayer hall for Pentecostal Christians Given with melodic instruments. The Respondent 1  here, the welfare association made a complaint on 15/05/1996 to the Tamil Nadu Pollution  Control Board, the Association expressed that prayers are being recited using amplifiers  which were causing disturbance within the territory. The complainants were too made to the  Superintendent of the police (Respondent 5) and Inspector of the police (Respondent 6) . The  joint chief environmental engineer (Respondent 4) at that point tended to a letter to  respondent 5 to require activity on the complaint. At that point once more another letter was  tended to from Respondent 4 to respondent 5 where a report was encased, report of  encompassing noise level survey conducted on the region of the appellants and it too  disclosed that clamor pollution was due to playing of vehicles on the Madhavaram high road.  Respondent 1 gave representatives to different authorities in this respect and after that  recorded Criminal O.P. No. 61 of 1998 sometime recently high court in Madras for a heading  to respondent 5 and 6 to require activity on the premise of the letter issued by respondent 4.    

5 What Does Quiet Enjoyment Mean in Real Estate? Innago, https://innago.com/what-does-quiet-enjoyment mean-in-real-estate/ (Accessed 22 July 2024)

5 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

In High court, the Counsel for the church contended that the appeal was recorded with a  “diagonal thought process”. This motive being, in arrange to anticipate a devout minority  institution from seeking after its devout exercises and the court cannot issue any course to  avoid church from practicing its devout convictions and since there was a report submitted  that said that the noise pollution was since of the vehicles. 

–References 

To this, the Judge alluded to Appa Rao , M.S. v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1995 -1 L.W.  (Vol. 115) 319)- 

– In this case Rules were issued to control noise Pollution and issued headings to the  government for controlling the noise pollution and for the utilize of enhancers and amplifiers. 

The judge coordinated Respondent 5 and 6 to take after rules issued in Appa Rao’s case. The essential steps being 

1- to bring down the noise level to the allowed degree by taking activity against the  vehicles which make noise conjointly by making the church to keep their speaker at a  lower level. 

The judge also pointed out that there was no malice and malicious wish to cause any  hindrance to the free practice of religious faith of the church. And if the church exceeds  permissible decibels, it has to be abated.  

Issues Framed 

1. Whether a particular community or sect in a country having multiple religions and numerous  communities or sects can claim the right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion? 2. Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so  as to disturb the peace or tranquillity of the neighbourhood should be permitted? ⁶ 

⁶Arpit Sanjar, CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA V. K.K.R. MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSN. (Uploaded on 2 July 2020), https://legalaiddnlu.wordpress.com/2020/07/02/church-of-god-full-gospel-in india-v-k-k-r-majestic-colony-welfare-assn/ (Accessed July 22, 2024)

6 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

Appellant’s Petition and Court’s Course of Action  

Disappointed by the Order , the appeal is filed by the church , Senior counsel on sake of the  appealing party expressed that the reason for noise pollution was the vehicles and not  exercises of church and High court ignored right to declare and hone Christianity that’s  secured beneath Article 25 and 26 which cannot be removed by coordinating the authorities  to have a check on the church and the judgment depended upon by the high court in Appa  Rao’s case did not enable the authorities to meddled with the devout hones of any  community. 

The counsel on sake of the respondent fought that the appealing party, church attempted to  provide this devout color and the welfare association comprises of individuals from all  religions and the high court will not in any way preference the correct to devout hones of the  church. The high court is as it were in respect to decreasing noise pollution and can pass  orders to ensure and protect Essential rights of citizens beneath Article 19 (1) (a). 

He depended upon the judgment of Calcutta High court in Om Birangana Religious society V. The state and others, in this case the Court held that without a doubt, one can hone, declare  and engender religion, as ensured beneath Article 25(1), but that’s not an outright right. On  genuine and appropriate development of the arrangement of Article 25(1) and Article  19(1)(a), it cannot be said that a citizen ought to be coerced to listen anything which he does  not like or which he does not require.⁷The high court moreover laid down certain rules for  the pollution control board for give consent to utilize amplifiers and maintain noise levels in  West Bengal. 

The Supreme court’s view, the disputes raised by the appealing party merits to be rejected as  the course given by the judge to the authorities was as it were to take after the rules laid down  in Appa Rao’s case. This case was managed with by the same high court on the premise of  Madras City Police act, 1888 and Madras Town Nuisance, 1889. It is additionally in  congruity with the noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 which were  surrounded by the central government beneath the arrangements of the environment  (protection) act, 1986. 

7 Jitendra Sarin (Edited By Ashutosh Tripathi), ‘No loudspeakers for azaan, only human voice allowed’: UP top  court orders, Hindustan Times, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-loudspeakers-for-azaan only-human-voice-allowed-up-top-court-orders/story-lXBhvVdLQUycTPjjSAEUjI.html (Accessed 22 July, 2024)

7 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

Opinions on the Judgement 

In this case, the judgment that the supreme court passed was equitable and fair. The high  court coordinated the concerned authorities to actualize rules and controls to control noise  pollution and there was no address of any Devout minority being focused on. The rules  endorsed beneath noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 are: 

– Depending upon the sort of zone, there will be a restrain of decibel permitted that will  modify agreeing to daytime and night-time. The daytime should cruel 6 AM- 10 PM And the  night-time should cruel 10 PM-6 AM. 

– There will be 4 sorts of zone, Industrial region, commercial region, residential area and  silence zone. 

– other rules being, noise levels in any range might not surpass the encompassing discuss  quality guidelines in regard to noise and authorities will be held capable for requirement of  noise contamination control measures. 

– Amplifiers can be utilized as it were after composed authorization and cannot be utilized at  night. 

– on the off chance that one damages these rules , they will be obligated for punishment 

– one can hold up a complainant in the event that noise level surpasses the measures and the  specialists are gathered to require activities in like manner 

– on the off chance that the authorities are fulfilled with the complaint, there will be a  composed arrange issued which has the control to deny continuation of music, sound and  noise. 

All of these rules stand unambiguous, clear and talk for themselves. The voters and the  official authorities have no thought of the standards or their duty to reliably take after them,  indeed in the event that the standards are clear. There’s a need of mindfulness among the  citizens around the affect, the results of the noise pollution that’s being made and in this way  the court order was fair to force these rules, directions and limitations. There should be active  implementation of these acts in arrange to avoid mishaps. 

Within the period of modernization, urbanization and industrialization, there’s a uncontrolled  increment in commotion contamination and in this case, the thought process was to control 

8 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

and diminish the noise pollution and not concealment of any community. In this case where  the church tried to give this case a religious colour, it needs to be noted that No religion  prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or  by beating of drums and this practice should not adversely affect the right to others. And it  needs to be accounted for that the welfare association consisted of people from all religions  which also includes Christianity hence this part of the association had no oblique motive  towards the church, the sole question was of the noise pollution created by the vehicles and  the loudspeakers.  

Within the case, Aacharya maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand prasadji and others v. The  state of Gujarat & others [(1975) 1 SCC 11], it was held that no rights in an organized society  can be outright and in a free play of social powers it isn’t conceivable to bring about an  intentional agreement, state should step in to set right the imbalance between competing  interface. 

One fundamental right of an individual may ought to co-exist in concordance with the work  out of another fundamental right by others too with a sensible and substantial work out of  control by the state. No right of an individual is supreme and opportunity comes with  limitations.

9 

Church v. Welfare Association, 2000 

CONCLUSION 

The Case Displayed here gives us distant; higher; stronger; improved understanding of how  religion and rights work in agreement. The constitution gives shields and principal rights to  all, but those rights are never absolute. Those have to be worked out with limitations. The  structure beneath Articles 25 and 26 has given religious institutions fundamental right to  hone, declare and engender, But the court held that ‘undisputedly no religion endorsed that  prayers ought to be performed by aggravating the peace of others nor does it lecture that they  should be through voice intensifiers or beating of drums. Within the Supreme court’s view, in  a civilized society within the title of religion, exercises which aggravate ancient, illuminate  people, understudies or children having their rest in early hours or amid daytime or other  people carrying on other exercises cannot be allowed. In this case Articles 25 and 26 are not  required to be managed with in detail. 

Protecting noise pollution beneath the title of religious hone is terrible. Here the sole cause  wasn’t the church but the vehicles as well and in case anybody goes past the permissible  decibels, it must be controlled. There are different acts in play here, but they require dynamic  execution on the field and strict activities ought to be taken in the event that damaged.