Our noise legislation treat noise as a nuisance and so does the health authorities, and we only worry when noise intrude in our space! , irrespective that chronic noise is a hazard to health and wellbeing.

 

Fragmentation of institutional responsibilities appears to be amongst the main drawbacks that hinder the authorities from regulating noise more effectively. At present, responsibilities for regulating noise are divided amongst 10 regulatory bodies and there is no specific institutional mechanism for coordination on matters related to noise..

 

Another problem lies in the fact that the present legal system largely treats noise as nuisance, and tends to favour remedial, as opposed to a preventive approach to noise. Due to the subjective nature of nuisance, it is difficult for an aggrieved party to prove the fact of nuisance in the courts of law in the absence of objectively verifiable noise limit thresholds, which are largely absent from the present legislation. Needless to say, that the above shortcomings often manifest themselves through public frustration over the apparent inability of authorities to deal with their complaints related to noise effectively.

​

                             Noise pollution is a top environmental hazard to both physical and mental health.

                  Nevertheless, the public is not informed on environmental noise nor protected from its effects