The Hindu Editorial Analysis
02 September 2025
Noise pollution is rising but policy is falling silent
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic :GS 3: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment
Context
To combat rising noise pollution, cities must adopt a rights-centered approach that prioritizes citizens’ well-being.
Introduction
In Indian cities, urban noise pollution is fast turning into a critical but under-recognized public health issue. With decibel levels persistently breaching standards in schools, hospitals, and housing areas, it poses a direct threat to the constitutional assurance of peaceful and dignified living.
Comparative Approaches to Urban Noise Governance: India vs. Europe
| Aspect | India (NANMN & CPCB) | Europe (EEA & Policy Action) |
| Launch & Purpose | In 2011, CPCB launched the National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network (NANMN) as a real-time noise data platform. | European Environment Agency (EEA) systematically monitors noise-induced illnesses, mortality, and economic impact. |
| Current Status | After a decade, NANMN works more as a passive repository than a tool for policy reform. Data is scattered across dashboards with little enforcement. | Noise data directly shapes policies, leading to redesigns in speed limits, zoning frameworks, and stricter enforcement. |
| Key Problems | – Flawed sensor placement: Many mounted 25–30 feet high, violating CPCB’s 2015 guidelines. – Lack of accountability: Data often biased or incomplete, remaining politically and administratively inert. | Data is actively used to guide public health measures and urban planning. |
| Economic Impact | No systematic valuation; regulatory fragmentation and institutional silence prevail. | EEA estimates the annual cost of noise pollution at €100 billion, highlighting its economic and health burden. |
| Governance Issues | – RTI queries unanswered. – State Pollution Control Boards work in silos. – Even in large states like Uttar Pradesh, Q1 2025 data is not public. | Coordinated action at national and EU levels, ensuring transparency and public access to data. |
Apathy, neglect, serious questions
- Not just environmental neglect but also constitutional failure — violating Article 21 (right to life with dignity) and Article 48A (duty of environmental protection).
- The Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 exist but enforcement is largely symbolic.
- WHO safe limits: 50 dB(A) by day, 40 dB(A) by night in silent zones; Indian cities like Delhi and Bengaluruoften record 65–70 dB(A) near sensitive institutions.
- Infrastructure growth, traffic, late-night drilling, and crane operations worsen the crisis, defying regulations.
- The Supreme Court (2024) reaffirmed that excessive noise infringes fundamental rights, citing Noise Pollution (V), In Re (2005).
- Silence zones becoming epicentres of noise exposes weak state capacity and lack of civic respect.
- Ecological costs: A 2025 study found urban noise and light disrupted common mynas’ sleep and song patterns, weakening social signalling.
- This reflects not only avian distress but a breakdown in ecological communication systems, signalling erosion of urban environmental ethics.
Civic fatigue and the politics of silence
- Noise as politics: Urban noise is not merely a technical concern, but a deeply political issue tied to civic rights and governance.
- Normalization of noise: Honking, drilling, and loudspeakers are now accepted as background irritants, leading to civic fatigue and weak public outrage.
- Invisibility of noise: Unlike smog or garbage, sound leaves no visible trace, only mental stress, disturbed sleep, and health risks.
- Public health impact: Children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions are most vulnerable to noise-induced harm.
- Legal framework gaps: The Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 exist but are rarely updated to match today’s urban realities.
- Fragmented execution: Poor coordination among municipal bodies, traffic police, and pollution boardsweakens enforcement.
- Policy need: India requires a National Acoustic Policy, similar to Air Quality Standards, with:
- Defined permissible decibel levels across zones.
- Regular audits and monitoring.
- Local grievance redress mechanisms.
- Enforcement challenge: Without inter-agency synergy, regulation will remain sporadic and symbolic
Adopt a culture of ‘sonic empathy’
- Tackling urban noise is not just regulatory, it is a cultural challenge requiring a shift toward sonic empathy.
- Public education must go beyond slogans — integrating schools, driver training, and community spaces — to embed noise sensitivity like seatbelt norms.
- Silence should be redefined as the presence of care, not merely the absence of sound.
- Decentralise NANMN by giving local bodies real-time data access and accountability.
- Tie monitoring to enforcement through penalties, zoning compliance, and construction controls.
- Institutionalise awareness by evolving campaigns like “No Honking Day” into sustained civic behaviour shifts.
- Urban planning must embed acoustic resilience, prioritising sonic civility alongside growth and mobility.
Conclusion
Silence should not be viewed as something to be imposed; rather, it must be enabled through thoughtful design, effective governance, and collective democratic will. For India, adopting a rights-based approach to urban noise is essential. Without such a framework, the vision of smart cities risks remaining incomplete, as they may continue to be unliveable in terms of sound and acoustic well-being.