Abstract:This research delves into the landmark case of Church Of God (Full Gospel) In. vs K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare.The rapid expansion of churches, especially those represented by the Church of God, has raised environmental concerns, leading to calls for legislation to address the problem. This article evaluates the expansion of the church and addresses related problems such as noise, traffic accidents, air pollution, inadequate ventilation, and poor business practices that lead to health hazards. This article combines primary and secondary data to highlight health risks such as shortness of breath, stress-related illnesses, hearing loss, speech and heart problems. The report concludes by recommending the implementation of strict environmental laws and cooperation between the government and the church to reduce the negative effects of church expansion.

Table of Contents


Title and Brief of the Case……………………………..1-2






  • Introduction:

The Church of God’s case highlights the importance of environmental law as it shows crimes related to the management of hazardous waste at its facilities. This research  highlights the important role of environmental management in protecting the environment and public health. Environmental law includes many laws that regulate the protection of natural resources and ecological balance and address issues such as air and water pollution, waste management and land use. Violation of these rules will result in serious and legal penalties. Therefore, the case of the Church of God shows the importance of complying with environmental laws to protect the environment and keep society healthy.

  • Title and Brief of the case

Church Of God (Full Gospel) In. vs K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare

Parties to the case:

(1)Petitioner: Church of God (Full Gospel) In India


(2)Respondent: K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/2000

Citation: AIR 2000 SC 2773

BENCH: M B Shah, J. & S.N. Phukan, J.

 Country/Territory: India

Court name: Supreme Court of India

Seat of court : Delhi

Subject:Environment gen., Air & atmosphere

  •  Background of the case:
  1.  In this case, Pentecostal Christians used drums, guitars, and other instruments and even spoke loudly to pray to God in church located in KKR Nagar, Madhavram High Road, Chennai. K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Society, a local welfare organisation, filed a complaint with the Tamil Nadu Crime Commission about the church’s practices, saying these practices were causing noise and causing public nuisance. They also complained to the Chief of Police and the Chief of Police.
  2. After receiving the complaint, the bureau conducted a noise test of the area with the chief environmental engineer. However, test results showed that the noise in the area was caused by traffic on Madhavram High Road. Later, K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Society (K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Society) filed a complaint in the Delhi High Court, asking the court to expel the Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police against the practices of the church.
  3.  It was argued that the petition was submitted by the K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Association (KKKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association) with the intention of obstructing the religious practices of the minority churches of the mala, and stated that the case could not be defended to prevent the building from practicing the religion of the church because the Indian Constitution is secular and Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution give every citizen the right and freedom to practice his religion and belief. 
  4. They presented the results of the tests conducted by the municipality’s environmental manager, who said that the noise was not caused by their beliefs, but by the movement of vehicles in the area. 
  5. The High Court Court upheld the claim of the Welfare Association. The High Court ruled that the Board of Directors’ report is correct, so the cause of the noise is not only the loudspeaker of the church but also the traffic in the area .So the high court awarded an balanced judgment directing the SP and inspectors to take necessary steps to ensure that the loudspeakers in the church are at low level to reduce noise. 
  6. Dissatisfied with the decision, the church petitioned the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner claimed that the apex court has ignored Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, which protect the right to teach and practice religion. He also claimed that two investigations were conducted by the Pollution Control Board. The report clearly shows that the pollution in the area is due to traffic, not church work. 
  • Issues: 

1) Are religious beliefs or activities allowed to create environmental noise?

2) Whether the Supreme Court interfered with Christian tradition and violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

  • Judgement: 
  1. The judge ruled that any religion should not disturb the peace of society or affect the health of others. Article 25 of the Constitution of India states that everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, belief and expression, justice and health; Article 26 of the Constitution states that every community has the right to govern. a belief. However, these articles do not give people the right to practice their religion without violating the peace of mind of others by disturbing the sleep of the elderly, the sick, students or children.
  2.  The honorable judge stated that these actions of these communities and are not allowed to affect the health of other public of .Hence these actions should not be continued in the name of religion and that the Supreme Court decision does not violate Articles 25 and 26

  1. The Supreme Court can order to uphold and protect the fundamental rights of citizens through Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the House said. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 sets out regulations regarding noise pollution by setting permissible noise limits in residential, commercial, commercial or residential areas.
  2.  The bans include regulations governing the use of noise and noise under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and the Nuisance (Law and Regulation) Rules, 2000, the court said. environment. Air quality standards regarding noise in different areas/regions. No loudspeakers or public areas will be used without police permission. Speakers can be played in Industrial Zone 1, Residential Zone 2, Commercial Zone 3 and Quiet Zone 4. The specific time is as follows: 

1) Industrial Zone: The zone needs to be sent to the zone specialized in producing products and providing services. It is aimed at the production of products and has a clear geographical area. 

2) Residential Area: A residential area is an area where single family or multi-family lives. 

3) A business district: An area of ​​a city, town, or other city specifically designated for business.

(i) Daytime hours are from 6 am to 10 pm.

(ii) Between 22:00 at night and 6 in the morning.


The impact of this case extends beyond the specific debate and impacts the intersection of religious freedom and environmental regulation in India. He emphasized the role of the judiciary in interpreting laws, taking into account the interests of society. In addition, the decision provides guidance on the management of environmental policies, promoting harmony between different communities and ensuring environmental stability without compromising freedoms. This document is an important first step in solving similar problems around the world and demonstrates the importance of balancing human freedom with health in legal decision-making.

  • Conclusion

Therefore, based on the opinion of the Supreme Court, the court found the main point of the case, that no church can continue work that violates the rights of other groups and harms the environment. The main cause of air pollution is the movement of cars, but drumming and noise also cause more noise, the report said. The right to practice one’s religion or the right to freedom of expression cannot be seen as a person’s right to life. Religious activities must comply with rules and regulations and must not cause public nuisance [Public Nuisance: According to Section 268 of the IPC, public nuisance arises from any harm caused by an act or omission of a person. To cause danger or inconvenience to the public or to the general public living nearby or using the premises, or to reasonably cause injury, inconvenience, danger or inconvenience to persons who may be used for public policy. Stress cannot be avoided because it provides some convenience or benefit. ] When using drums and loudspeakers in various areas/zones, the pollution provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 must be observed.


Koushiki Chatterjee,

Amity University,

5th year

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *