A panel of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has clarified that temple festivals are not governed by the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and therefore do not require approval from the pollution control board. This conclusion arose from an investigation into a noise pollution complaint filed during the ‘Aadi’ festival in Chennai.
The issue was brought to the tribunal’s attention by a resident of Jakir Hussain Street in Karayanchavadi, who reported that the loud music played from large speakers during the Tamil month of Aadi caused considerable disturbance to his one-year-old child and elderly parents. The complaint prompted the NGT to establish a joint committee to investigate the matter.
Upon visiting the site in June, the committee confirmed that the temple had indeed used speakers during the festivities. However, the temple administration defended its actions, stating that it had obtained the necessary permissions from the local police to conduct the Aadi festival, as it had done annually. In response, the committee advised the temple authorities to ensure that the sound levels remained within the legally permitted limits—55 decibels (dB) during the day and 45 dB at night—established for residential areas. The temple management agreed to adhere to these guidelines going forward.
In its report to the tribunal, the committee clarified that the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, is primarily intended to regulate emissions and pollution from industrial activities and is not applicable to religious or cultural events like temple festivals. Consequently, the temple does not require consent from the pollution control board for its activities. The report further noted that in cases where noise pollution becomes a concern, affected parties can seek recourse through the appropriate government authority under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
On 7th August, the NGT’s southern zone bench, led by Justice, reviewed the panel’s findings and decided to dispose of the application. The tribunal observed that the complainant should have initially approached the relevant government authority to address the noise disturbance issue. However, it acknowledged that the situation had been amicably resolved between the parties involved. This ruling underscores the distinction between regulations designed for industrial pollution control and those addressing noise pollution in residential areas, offering clarity on the applicability of laws to religious and cultural celebrations in the country. The decision may serve as a precedent for future disputes concerning the intersection of cultural practices and environmental regulations.
