Punjab and Haryana HC talks tough on gun culture, noise pollution and obscenity
The HC was dealing with the a clutch of petitions against noise pollution and use of firearms in marriages, including a 2016 case of celebratory firing at a marriage in Bathinda in which a woman performing on stage had lost her life.Updated: Jul 26, 2019 11:20 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday came out with a slew of directions to tackle the menace of gun culture, noise pollution and obscenity in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
The bench of justice Rajiv Sharma and justice HS Sidhu said the district magistrates (DMs)/ senior superintendents of police (SSPs)/ superintendents of police (SPs) of each district would be personally responsible to ensure compliance of the orders.
The court was dealing with the a clutch of petitions against noise pollution and use of firearms in marriages, including a 2016 case of celebratory firing at a marriage in Bathinda in which a woman performing on stage had lost her life.
The bench observed that the glorification of violence, wine, drugs and vulgar songs have given rise to culture of gangsters in both the states and Chandigarh. It is affecting children of impressionable age.
It also stated that semi-nude film posters are an insult to women. Frequent deaths and injuries due to firearms at marriage, other functions is a cause of concern too. Regarding noise pollution, the court said the indiscriminate use of loudspeaker or amplifier or musical instrument causes annoyance, disturbance and discomfort. “It disturbs the sleeping pattern of the patients.
The study of the students is also adversely affected,” it said. The bench also accepted a report of an HC- constituted committee and asked the both the states and Chandigarh to comply with the recommendations.
The committee had suggested that all religious institutions, marriage palaces, should have noise monitoring devices and for complaints there should be a common hot line especially one for Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula. To deal with complaints, standard operating procedure should be established and record be maintained and identity of complainant should not be revealed.
The panel had also recommended criminal action both against the person found guilty and the enforcement agency.