Church of God (Full Gospel), and the Answer to "My Religion Requires It"

In one line

No religion requires a loudspeaker, the right to practise religion is not absolute, and a citizen cannot be made to listen to what he does not want to hear.

In exam wording: in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773, (2000) 7 SCC 282, the Supreme Court held that no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others, nor does any preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or the beating of drums, and that while one may practise, profess and propagate religion as guaranteed by Article 25(1), that is not an absolute right, Article 25 being subject to Article 19(1)(a), so that on a true construction of the two together a citizen cannot be coerced to hear anything he does not like or does not require.

The question the case answers

Every noise case involving a religious source runs into the same objection: the practice is part of the religion, Article 25 protects it, and the regulator may not interfere.

That objection has to be answered, because it is not frivolous. Article 25(1) guarantees to all persons freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, and courts are properly reluctant to tell a community what its religion requires.

This case answers it, and the way it answers it is what matters. It does not hold that the practice is irreligious or unprotected. It holds two other things, and a student who gives the reasoning correctly is doing something most answers do not.

The case

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773, (2000) 7 SCC 282, Supreme Court of India, M.B. Shah and S.N. Phukan JJ, 30 August 2000.

Facts. A residents' welfare association complained that a church was using loudspeakers, drums and other sound-producing instruments during its prayers, and that the noise disturbed the neighbourhood, which included a school and residents preparing for examinations. The church resisted, contending that a direction to control the noise interfered with its right to practise and propagate its religion.

Held. The Court framed the question as whether, in a country with numerous religions, one community can claim a right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion, and whether beating drums or reciting prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or tranquillity of the neighbourhood should be permitted.

Its answer had two limbs.

Limb one, the factual premise. Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others, nor does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. In a civilised society, activities carried on in the name of religion which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during the day, or other persons carrying on other activities, cannot be permitted. Young babies in the neighbourhood are entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere, and a student preparing for his examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours.