Declare schools, colleges & hosps horn-free zones: HC
2
Patna: In a scathing judgment, the Patna high court on Friday rebuked the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) for its "inaction" in tackling rising noise pollution and asked the district magistrates and senior police officers of all Bihar districts to ensure that schools, colleges and hospitals are declared "horn-free zones.
"
A single bench of Justice Rajiv Roy, while disposing of a contempt petition filed by one Surendra Prasad, issued a slew of directions, instructing district magistrates to strictly enforce all advisories issued by the Board to curb noise pollution across the state. The court also directed the police to seize loudspeakers, DJs and other noise-generating equipment being used in violation of pollution laws and take stringent action against offenders.
In his 45-page judgment, Justice Roy expressed deep displeasure at the "insensitivity" of state authorities and Board officials towards the growing menace of noise pollution caused by DJs, loudspeakers, musical bands and high-pressure horns on Patna's roads.
He began his judgment with a dramatic analogy: "The insensitivity of state authorities towards the suffering of the common man reminds one of Queen Marie Antoinette's infamous remark during the French Revolution: 'If they do not have bread to eat, why not let them eat cake?'"
Criticising the pollution board's indifference, Justice Roy said, "The Board officials are sitting in air-conditioned offices issuing advisories, but they have completely washed their hands of the everyday suffering of Patna's citizens, not to speak of the rest of Bihar. Those responsible for ensuring a noise and pollution-free environment in the state have abdicated their duty."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
23 minutes ago
- India.com
Delhi High Court: Adults Have Right To Marry Without Family Interference
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the personal liberty of two consenting adults to marry and live together peacefully is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a recent ruling, the court emphasised that family opposition cannot override this autonomy. Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family. The couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a "missing" complaint, was later closed. To ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without delay. Justice Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court reserves order on plea challenging removal of stray dogs from streets of Delhi NCR
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (August 14, 2025) reserved its order on an interim plea seeking a stay on its August 11, 2025, suo motu directive ordering the removal of stray dogs from the capital's streets and their confinement in shelters within six to eight weeks. 'Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility,' a Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath and also comprising Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria underscored. However, the top court declined to grant a stay on the directions issued to civic bodies by a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Union Government, said most fatalities from dog bites and rabies involved children and called for an urgent resolution to the escalating public health risk posed by stray dogs. 'Nobody is an animal hater. Children are dying. This issue needs to be resolved, not to be contested,' he said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an NGO which looks after dogs, said the situation was 'very serious' and the matter needed to be argued in depth. He pressed for a stay on some of the directives in the August 11 order, contending that they contravened the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which prohibit relocation of strays from their original place of habitation. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the August 11, 2025, order 'puts the horse before the cart,' as there were no adequate shelters to accommodate the strays. He added that the directive contravenes earlier Supreme Court rulings mandating strict adherence to the ABC Rules, 2023, in rehabilitating stray dogs. The suo-motu case, initially heard by a Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was later reassigned by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath. On August 13, 2025, a lawyer apprised the Chief Justice of a May 9, 2024, order to treat stray canines with compassion. The CJI had agreed to list the case after this oral mentioning. Taking cognisance of increasing instances of stray dog attacks on children, including infants, Justice Pardiwala had said authorities should 'at the earliest start picking up stray dogs from all localities, more particularly the vulnerable localities of the city as well as areas on the outskirts.' However, the directive sparked widespread outrage among animal rights activists, public figures, and welfare organisations, who argued that the region lacks sufficient facilities to accommodate an estimated eight lakh stray dogs. They warned that the large-scale capture of so many animals could result in logistical chaos and lead to acts of cruelty.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Stray Dog Matter Set for Fresh Hearing by Supreme Court Bench
The matter was taken up by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Wednesday from the two-judge bench which on Tuesday ordered pan-India culling of strays across the National Capital Region (NCR). National Capital Region (NCR) cities' streets, and ordered Supreme Court hearing of the matter on Thursday before a 3-judge Supreme Court bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. Order on removing all strays from Delhi, NCR withdrawn On August 11, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala had ordered the Delhi government and civic bodies in NCR to resolve the stray dog issue India by capturing the dogs from Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad, Gurgaon and its outskirts and shifting them to any shelter home or pound within a specified timeframe. Acting on the representations of two counsels - one of them on grounds that the order appeared to be in conflict with an earlier SC judgment by a different bench - Following the request of animal control laws activists, a bench led by CJI Gavai on Wednesday withdrew all existing pet control laws from Pardiwala's bench and sent the case for further hearing to the bench of Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria. On May 9 last year, a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a detailed order disposing of more than two dozen petitions by Kerala government, Animal Welfare Board, NGOs and animal rights activists who had raised objections over contradictory orders passed by different high courts in the state on the culling of stray dogs. On Wednesday morning, the CJI was told by a counsel that the August 11 order by the Supreme Court was also in conflict with a past Supreme Court order last year which had asked civic bodies to treat the strays with compassion and strictly in accordance with the ABC Rules, 2023. Justice Maheshwari and Justice Karol last year had made it clear that dogs cannot be culled on a large scale and directed that civic authorities must act only with the object and intent of the relevant provisions of the existing laws.
