Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the High Court in a recent case involving the playing of music in public places. The court’s decision and reasoning on this issue have sparked debate and discussion among legal experts. Stay tuned to understand the implications of this directive in the realm of Indian law.
Facts
- Relief granted by the High Court regarding the removal of L.C.D. from the area is acknowledged and not a grievance for the appellants.
- Appellants are solely aggrieved by direction no. (iii) which was not part of the issue before the High Court.
- Interlocutory Application No 167927 of 2019 allowed for deleting certain proforma respondents from the party list at the risk of the appellants.
- Appeal filed by non-parties in the Writ Petition who were directly affected but not impleaded before the High Court or prayed for such directions they are now aggrieved by.
- Civil Appeal No. 2691 of 2021 arising from SLP(C) No.24806/2019 is taken as lead matter for disposal of all connected appeals in this common order.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Loan Transaction Dispute
Issue
- Respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court with prayers related to the removal of LCD from Hashimpur Chauraha, Prayagraj.
- The High Court issued 9 directions in the judgment dated 20.08.2019 while considering the prayers.
- The appellants are aggrieved by direction No (iii) issued by the High Court, pertaining to the operation of DJ and its noise levels.
- The High Court’s direction stated that DJ permissions shall not be granted due to unpleasant and obnoxious noise levels beyond permissible limits under the Rules, 2000.
- The submission by the counsel for the appellants highlighted the absence of pleadings or prayers related to DJ noise levels in the Writ Petition.
Also Read: Clarifying Legal Requirements for Approval in Disciplinary Proceedings
Arguments
- The Writ Petition did not include a prayer regarding playing music (DJ) in public places, it was limited to playing LCD in a specific area.
- Directions could have been issued under Article 226 of the Constitution by expanding the scope of the Writ Petition.
- State of Uttar Pradesh and Allahabad Development Authority are complying with the directions of the High Court and not permitting DJ playing except in cases with stay orders or necessary permissions.
- Appellants claim the right to play music in public places with a license under relevant Noise Pollution Rules, 2000.
- The restriction on DJ playing affects the livelihood of the appellants and is argued to infringe upon their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Private respondents argue in favor of the restrictions imposed by the High Court direction.
Also Read: Challenging the Validity of a Will: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The direction regarding noise generated by DJ and restriction on playing music in public places was not within the scope of the Writ Petition’s pleadings or prayer.
- The Writ Petition cannot be expanded to cover issues of general public importance without specific pleadings or prayers.
- Legal justifications were provided for the opinion that the High Court’s direction on playing music in public places was not valid.
- Affected parties who were not impleaded should be given an opportunity to present their case.
- Prior to passing orders of public importance, affected parties should be impleaded, at least in a representative capacity.
- Issuing directions in a private litigation, not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, should be avoided.
Decision
- Civil Appeal No 2691 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.24806/2019 has led to other connected appeals being allowed.
- Direction no. (iii) in the impugned judgment of the High Court has been quashed.
- Appellants or any other such persons are allowed to play music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from concerned authorities.
Case Title: SACHIN KASHYAP Vs. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA (2021 INSC 335)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002691-002691 / 2021
