HC clarifies scope of noise pollution directions, rules online content beyond contempt jurisdiction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the scope of its earlier directions on curbing noise pollution could not be stretched to regulate online content, while dismissing a contempt petition seeking action against alleged failure to prevent playing of songs glorifying liquor, drugs and violence.

“It is a well-settled principle that the contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal; consequently, the standard of proof is high and presumptions cannot substitute proof. Further, it is trite law that contempt is not a vehicle to expand or re-write an order or to conduct a roving enquiry into generalised non-compliance,” Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed.

The petition was filed by an advocate in person for alleged wilful disobedience of a July 22, 2019, division bench judgment by the then bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu. The petitioner contended that songs glorifying drugs, liquor and violence were still being played at marriage functions, clubs, discotheques and other public events, besides being freely available on online platforms despite the order.

After hearing him and going through the case file, Justice Sharma asserted: “A careful and contextual reading of the directions reveals that the division bench was primarily addressing the menace of noise pollution and ensuring enforcement of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and related cognate provisions. The directions regulate the use of loudspeakers, public-address systems and sound-amplifying devices in physical spaces and lay down temporal restrictions, cast monitoring and enforcement obligations on the state machinery.”

Justice Sharma added that the present petition was deficient on foundational facts. “No specific instance has been pleaded such as the date, venue, event, or the identity of the persons or authorities where the directions extracted above were violated”.

The court also drew a clear line between noise control orders and digital content regulation. “The principle grievance actually, is directed at the availability of songs on online/digital platforms. However, the division bench directions do not regulate the hosting or transmission of online content. The direction principally governs noise pollution and the use of sound-producing devices at physical venues, with corresponding on-ground enforcement. To the extent the petitioner seeks regulation or take-down of content on digital platforms, that is beyond the four corners of the directions issued by division bench and is not a ground of civil contempt of that said judgment.”

The court was inclined to impose costs for filing a misconceived contempt plea, but it showed leniency after noting the petitioner was a young member of the Bar. Justice Sharma asserted: “Considering that he is a young member of the Bar and mindful that costs may unduly prejudice him, this court refrained itself from imposing costs. He is, however, cautioned to exercise due care in future.”