38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, May 18, 2024
Judiciary

“The sanctity to the finality of judicial orders should never deter a Court in correcting its plain errors”: Uttarakhand High Court Modifies its 2018 judgment Pertaining to Noise Limits for Loudspeakers

By Shreedhara Purohit      17 August, 2020 05:20 PM      0 Comments
“The sanctity to the finality of judicial orders should never deter a Court in correcting its plain errors”: Uttarakhand High Court Modifies its 2018 judgment Pertaining to Noise Limits for Loudspeakers

The matter was heard by Justice Dhulia as the division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Lok Pal Singh gave divergent views on the issue. The judge agreed with the reasoning given by the Chief Justice to allow the application. 

In the year 2018, A judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court which was appealed to be modified due to conflicting verdicts given by the Division Bench.

In June 2018, a division bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Lokpal Singh, whilst hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), had passed a judgment directing the state authorities to make sure that no loudspeaker or public tackle gadget is used in temples, mosques or gurdwaras without permission and when used, have to be with a project “that the noise level shall now not exceed more than 5dB(A) peripheral noise level”. 

An authority’s order used to be due to this fact issued, effectively banning the use of loudspeakers in spiritual institutions. While the 10dB(A) level is the threshold for hearing, a 10dB(A) stage is roughly equal to the sound of human breathing. As per law, noise up to the degree of 55 dB(A) is permitted in residential areas at some point of the day and up to 45 dB(A) at night. The bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Hon’ble Justice Lok Pal Singh was hearing a plea regarding setting up permissible noise limit for loudspeakers. The modification application was filed under sections 151 and 152 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The applicant, who claimed to be a representative of all mutawallies of Waqfs of all mosques in the entire State of Uttarakhand, sought a direction by the court to permit the use of loudspeakers in places of worships within the limits prescribed in the schedule to the Noise Pollution (Regulations and Control) Rules, 2000. It is pertinent to mention here that he was not a party to the original petition where the order to be modified was passed.

“The State Government is directed to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including religious bodies in Temples, Mosques, and Gurudwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 5dB(A) peripheral noise level” reads the PIL.

The court directed the state authorities to make sure that no loudspeaker or public deal with the device is utilized by any man or woman or organization, which includes non-secular bodies, without the written permission of the applicable authorities.

“The loudspeakers preserve on blaring even past midnight. The loudspeaker can’t be authorized for use without the written permission from the authority even though the temples, mosques, and Gurudwaras,” the court said. The direction was issued by using a division bench of justices Rajiv Sharma and Lok Pal Singh whilst hearing public activity litigation in search of motion in opposition to a toy manufacturing facility in Haridwar district.

Justice Dhulia observed that Justice Singh had rejected the application primarily on a technicality, as the Judge himself agreed that a review could have been maintainable. 

"I would most respectfully state that it matters little how the matter came up before this Court. Whether it was clothed in the shape of a review or a mere application under Section 152 CPC is not relevant. The Rules of the procedure are after all the handmaids of justice. Consequently, when there is no doubt as to the powers of the Court in correcting an apparent error, correction must be done. The case was before this Court ultimately in a writ proceeding. The powers of review in a writ proceeding are inherent in Article 226, which must be exercised in appropriate cases as the Hon'ble Apex Court while exercising powers 32 of review also acts as a Court of equity, which is duty-bound to correct its errors." he mentioned.  

He further stated that "The power to make corrections in an order or decree 'on its own motion' would mean powers that can be exercised 'sua sponte', i.e. on its own. The mere fact that there is an application too for such corrections is immaterial. Once the Court has an option to exercise powers sua sponte and it chooses to do that, that is the end of it. The fact that there is also an application before the Court by a party matters little. The Court here, we must not forget, is also a superior Court and a "Court of record". It has inherent powers and a duty to correct its records."

In this regard, the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia referred to the quote of Lord Atkin, "finality is a good thing, but justice is better." 

He also referred to quotes of Justice Aharon Barak of Israel Supreme Court, "Before I part, I must refer to Aharon Barak, who never tires in reminding Judges that they are human beings after all, and as such prone to commit errors. But then these errors must be corrected at the first given opportunity. To emphasize his point, Barak first cites the well-known statement of Justice Jackson ("we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final"), and then adds "I think that the learned Judge erred. The finality of our decisions is based on our ability to admit our mistakes, and our willingness to do so in appropriate cases."

Barak then cites a case in which he gave an opinion. This case was later reargued before a larger Bench. Barak's earlier decision was reversed, and while doing so Barak explained why: "This conclusion of mine conflicts with the conclusion that I reached in my ruling, which is the subject of this petition. In other words, I changed my mind. Indeed, since the judgment was given – and against the backdrop of the further hearing itself – I have not ceased to examine whether my approach is correctly grounded in law. I do not count myself among those who believe that the finality of a decision testifies to its correctness. We all err. Our professional integrity requires us to admit our mistakes, if we are convinced that we have indeed erred…in our difficult hours, when we evaluate ourselves, our North Star should be uncovering the truth that brings justice within the limits of the law. We should not entrench ourselves in our previous decisions. We must be prepared to admit our mistakes."

The sanctity to the finality of judicial orders should never deter a Court in correcting its plain errors, remarked Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia while allowing a plea seeking modification of a directive issued by the Uttarakhand High Court in its 2018 judgment setting maximum noise level for loudspeakers.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

“The sanctity to the finality of judicial orders should never deter a Court in correcting its plain errors”: Uttarakhand High Court Modifies its 2018 judgment Pertaining to Noise Limits for Loudspeakers “The sanctity to the finality of judicial orders should never deter a Court in correcting its plain errors”: Uttarakhand High Court Modifies its 2018 judgment Pertaining to Noise Limits for Loudspeakers

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia while allowing a plea seeking modification of a directive issued by the Uttarakhand High Court in its 2018 judgment setting maximum noise level for loudspeakers.

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses PIL Filed against Use of Siren by an MLA, His Family Members with ₹50K Cost Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses PIL Filed against Use of Siren by an MLA, His Family Members with ₹50K Cost

Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks, he shall recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue," the Court further directed. Uttarakhand High Court, Uttarakhand High Court order, Uttarakhand High Court judgement, Uttarakhand High Court chief justice

Chamoli District Judge suspended for obtaining woman’s call records, cleared of misconduct charge by Uttarakhand HC Chamoli District Judge suspended for obtaining woman’s call records, cleared of misconduct charge by Uttarakhand HC

Uttarakhand High Court sets aside the suspension of the Chamoli District judge accused of obtaining call detail records of a woman employee. Read more about the case here.

TRENDING NEWS

fundamental-right-to-health-includes-consumers-right-to-be-made-aware-of-quality-of-products-sc
Trending Judiciary
Fundamental right to health includes consumers' right to be made aware of quality of products: SC [Read Order]

Right to health includes consumers' right to know product quality. Advertisers must submit self-declarations for ads to ensure transparency and accountability: SC

17 May, 2024 01:43 PM
sc-asks-ed-to-file-response-to-sorens-plea-for-interim-on-may-20
Trending Judiciary
SC asks ED to file response to Soren's plea for interim on May 20

SC asks ED to file a response by May 20 to Hemant Soren's plea for interim bail during Lok Sabha elections, with a hearing scheduled for May 21.

17 May, 2024 06:12 PM

TOP STORIES

indian-courts-this-week-law-street-journals-weekly-round-up-of-sc-hcs-may-6-may-10
Trending Judiciary
Indian Courts this Week: Law Street Journal's Weekly Round-Up of SC & HCs [May 6 - May 10]

Get the latest updates from India's Supreme Court and the High Courts ! Here’s a round up of the week's top legal stories in a quick, easy-to-read summary.

13 May, 2024 10:29 AM
sc-dismisses-union-govt-plea-against-bail-to-maoist-financer-in-case-of-attack-on-police-party-in-jharkhand
Trending Judiciary
SC dismisses Union govt's plea against bail to Maoist financer in case of attack on police party in Jharkhand [Read Judgment]

SC rejects govt's plea against bail for accused in Jharkhand police attack case, citing absence of violated bail conditions.

13 May, 2024 11:33 AM
supreme-court-upholds-gang-rape-conviction-though-victim-turned-hostile
Trending Judiciary
Supreme Court upholds gang rape conviction, though victim turned hostile [Read Judgment]

SC upholds gang rape conviction despite victim's hostility, affirming witness credibility in criminal trials.

13 May, 2024 12:24 PM
sanatana-dharma-remarks-sc-seeks-response-from-up-maha-ktka-bihar-jamp;k-on-udhayanidhis-plea-for-clubbing-firs
Trending Judiciary
Sanatana Dharma remarks SC seeks response from UP, Maha, Ktka, Bihar, J&K on Udhayanidhi's plea for clubbing FIRs

SC seeks response on Udhayanidhi's plea for clubbing FIRs related to his remarks on 'Sanatan Dharma'.

13 May, 2024 12:39 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email