Skip to main content

Uff, Another Call Drop! What the Bombay High Court Says About Mobile Towers on Your Terrace

Hello – "Can you hear me now?" or "Sorry, I missed that, could you repeat?" Call drops and poor signal strength are frustrating. So, when mobile towers started popping up on building terraces, many of us thought, "Finally, better reception!" But, have you ever wondered if these towers are safe?

Let us see what happened in the Lake View Co-Operative Housing Society vs. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors (WP. 1382 of 2016) case. The court tackled the heated debate by combining three other writ petitions (WP. 2152 of 2014, WP. 2800 of 2015, WP. 2060 of 2016) over mobile towers and their potential health risks. The case decided on January 23, 2019, revolved around whether these towers, known as Telecom Cell Sites/Base Stations (TCS/BS), should be allowed on building terraces given the concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiation.

 Health vs. Connectivity

In 2016, residents of Lake View Co-Operative Housing Society (the petitioners) filed a petition challenging the installation of a mobile tower on their building terrace. They were worried about the potential health risks from electromagnetic radiation. They pointed to various studies including the documented view of the World Health Organization, suggesting these radiations might harm humans, animals, and plants. Even though there wasn't conclusive proof, they argued that it was better to be safe than sorry.

 What the Respondents Say

The Municipal Corporation and the telecom companies (the respondents) countered these fears as baseless. They explained that India’s radiation standards are super strict to keep electromagnetic radiation levels extremely low – just 1/10th of what international standards allow. They also mentioned that there’s a rigorous system in place to monitor and test these towers, ensuring they don’t exceed safety limits. They also pointed out that many courts, including the Bombay High Court, have previously ruled that these fears are not backed by solid evidence.

Judicial Reasoning

The Bombay High Court acknowledged the residents' worries and stressed the importance of looking at the facts. They referred to the "precautionary principle," a guideline from Supreme Court judgements in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors. This principle says we should take preventive measures when faced with uncertainty to avoid potential harm, even if we don't have complete scientific proof yet.

The Bombay High Court found that current scientific studies and expert opinions do not justify banning the installation of mobile towers as the electromagnetic radiation from these towers is not harmful. They pointed out that many other courts in India have also found no solid proof of harm from these mobile towers. The Court did stress the importance of continuing to enforce strict rules and regular checks to ensure these towers operate safely.

The court also detailed the timeline of extensive regulations already in place to protect us:

April 1998: International guidelines set safe radiation levels issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP).

May 2006: World Health Organization (WHO) issued a fact sheet stating that, based on current research, there is no convincing scientific evidence that weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks adversely impact human health.

April 2008: Government of India adopted these guidelines, then made them even stricter.

August 2013: Department of Telecommunications (DoT) issued additional guidelines and safe distance requirements to ensure public health.

In summary, the court said that while it's important to be cautious, the current safety measures are more than adequate. They also emphasized the need to conduct ongoing research and enforce these standards strictly.

The Verdict

So, what does all this legal talk boil down to? The Bombay High Court decided that the fears about health risks from mobile towers are not backed by enough solid evidence to justify stopping their installation on building terraces. They stressed that the strict regulations in place are designed to keep us safe while we enjoy better connectivity.

Why This Matters to You

This case is a great example of how the law balances technological progress with public health concerns. While it’s natural to worry about new technologies, it’s also crucial to rely on scientific evidence and robust safety standards.

Next time you enjoy a clear call without any "Can you hear me?" moments, remember that there’s a lot of thought and regulation behind those mobile towers on your terrace, ensuring that you stay connected safely.

[Stay connected, for more insights and updates on legal precedents. Image Credits: Google Images] 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more