“Religious institutions are not exempt from public nuisance laws merely because they are places of worship”
CA affirms conditional orders against religious activities causing noise pollution
The Court of Appeal recently affirmed the established legal principle that a conditional order can be issued to address noise pollution arising from religious activities, even when the place of worship is considered a public place.
In the case before the Court, the issue centered on a petition filed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Chilaw Police Station, seeking a conditional order to address noise pollution caused by Church services conducted by Rev. Yogaraj Steven. The petition was based on section 98(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, which permits courts to issue orders to remove nuisances affecting public spaces.
Rev. Yogaraj Steven, the respondent, contested the order, arguing that the Church, where religious activities were conducted, did not qualify as a public place under section 98. He claimed that the Magistrate’s Court’s order was beyond its jurisdiction and lacked proper evidence. The respondent further contended that the case did not fall within the ambit of public nuisance provisions of section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.
The Magistrate of Chilaw initially issued a conditional order on July 7, 2017, restricting the use of loudspeakers at the Church. Upon the respondent’s failure to provide evidence in rebuttal, the order was made permanent on October 17, 2017. Dissatisfied with this, Rev. Yogaraj Steven appealed to the High Court of Chilaw, which ruled in his favor, vacating the Magistrate’s order.
The petitioner then brought the matter before the Court of Appeal. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate had correctly applied the law, citing the principle that religious places can be considered public places if they affect the public due to noise pollution. The Court referred to Ashik vs. Bandula and Others (2007) 1 SLR 191, where it was held that public nuisance laws apply irrespective of the type of institution causing the disturbance. The Court also highlighted Marshall vs. Gunaratne Unnanse (1895) 1 NLR 179, noting that religious institutions are not exempt from public nuisance laws merely because they are places of worship.
The Court found that the learned High Court Judge had erred in concluding that places of worship could not be considered public places for the purpose of section 98. The judgment reaffirmed that noise disturbances from such institutions impacting nearby residents fall within the scope of public nuisance.
“…It is a well-established principle that the classification of a place as public or private does not exempt it from the provisions of public nuisance laws if it affects the surrounding community. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that religious places must adhere to such regulations to prevent undue disturbance to the public.”
“In Ashik vs. Bandula and Others, it was affirmed that public nuisance laws are applicable to any entity causing disturbance to the public, irrespective of its nature or purpose. This includes religious institutions if their activities result in noise pollution affecting the community.” – – Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon
