Towering India

What this docket is all about

There are three important facts that emerge from the Gujarat High

Court order of September 5, 2014.

Fact 1: Radio signals are not a health hazard

Fact 2: In India, the level of radio frequencies has been lowered to

one-tenth of international levels

Fact 3: Radio frequencies from Wi-Fi towards is comparable to or

less than radio frequencies from radio or TV broadcast

transmitters

As per the court order, the government is expected to disseminate

clarity around radiations from base transceiver stations for the public

at large. This docket captures the facts, simplifies them for mass

consumption and powers them with related reference documents.

sachin.atha

Highlight

Crux of the judgement

Tower radiations are not harmful

Public perception is misplaced

Claims of activists are unsubstantiated

WHO says there is no conclusive proof of harm

Government should disseminate facts and educate public

sachin.atha

Highlight

Page 1 of 7

Contents

No reason to fear mobile towers: Gujarat High Court: Page 2

Fact 1: Radio signals are not a health hazard: Page 3


one-tenth of international levels: Page 4



transmitters: Page 6

Annexures

Annexure 1: Gujarat High Court Order of September 5, 2014

Annexure 2: WHO Fact Sheet of May 2006

Annexure 3: Committee Report of January 17, 2014, on Issues

Related to EMF Radiation

sachin.atha

Highlight

sachin.atha

Highlight

Page 2 of 7

No reason to fear mobile towers: Gujarat High Court

In its September 5, 2014 order, the Gujarat High Court finally laid to

rest all controversy around radiations from base transceiver stations

or Wi-Fi mobile towers. They are safe, with levels that are one-tenth

of global norms.

Delivered by Honourable Mr Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the order further

states that the government must educate the people about the

safety of the towers. “We deem it necessary to mention that the

concerned authorities should, by way of communication through TV,

radio etc bring it to the notice of the people at large that there is no

reason for them to fear the erection” of these towers. “The reason

why we are saying so is that the impression in the mind of a common

man is that the Wi-Fi mobile towers erected all over the state (of

Gujarat) has the potential to cause health hazard due to the emission

of radio active waves from the said tower.”

[Reference – Annexure 1: Gujarat High Court Order]

Accordingly, in tune with the order and in the interest of the public,

we are bringing out three facts that should ease the minds of the

people and tell them that Wi-Fi mobile towers are safe.

---

sachin.atha

Highlight

sachin.atha

Highlight

Page 3 of 7

Fact 1: Radio signals are not a health hazard

According to a World Health Organisation May 2006 backgrounder

titled, ‘Electromagnetic fields and public health: Base stations and

wireless technologies’, radio frequency signals are not a health

hazard.

• “Considering the very low exposure levels and research results

collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the

weak RF [radio frequency] signals from base stations and wireless

networks cause adverse health effects,” the report states.

It further makes the following points regarding why the general

public perceives risks from radio frequency signals:

• Media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific

studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that

there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards.

• Aesthetic concerns.

• A feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of

determining the location of new base stations.

“Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective

communications and involvement of the public and other

stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before

installing radio frequency sources can enhance public confidence and

acceptability,” the report concludes.

[Reference – Annexure 2: WHO Fact Sheet]

---

sachin.atha

Highlight

Page 4 of 7


one-tenth of international levels

In 2010, the Report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on EMF

[electromagnetic field] Radiation by the Ministry of Communications

and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications

made the following recommendation:

• The radio frequencies exposure limits in India may be lowered

to 1/10th of the existing level keeping in view the data submitted by

COAI/ AUSPI during presentation made to the committee and trend

adopted by other developed countries.

Further, following the January 10, 2012 direction of the Lucknow

Bench of the Allahabad High Court, a committee gave its report on

Issues Related to EMF [electromagnetic field] Radiation on January

17, 2014. The members of this committee included scientists from

comprising professionals from IIT Karakpur, IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi, IIT

Roorkee, IIT Bombay, Indian Council of Medical Research, AIIMS,

Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Science and Engineering

Research Board and Telecom Engineering Centre. The report stated

the following:

• On November 4, 2008, India adopted the EMF radiation limits

recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionising

Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

• Further, based on a November 17, 2011 Office Memorandum

of Department of Telecom, India has adopted stricter norms,

following a precautionary approach on EMF exposure limits for

mobile base stations which are 1/10th of the limits prescribed by

ICNIRP. This has been effective since September 1, 2012.

sachin.atha

Highlight

sachin.atha

Highlight

Page 5 of 7

• It said that the assertion that people living within 50-300 metre

radius of mobile tower are more prone to dangerous ill effects of

EMF radiation, are not backed by conclusive scientific evidences.

• It concluded that the issue had been over simplified: “Such

unfounded and hypothetical analysis is ill conceived. This is complete

misrepresentation of actual position and shall create only confusion,

misperception and unfounded fear in the minds of general public,

which should be avoided.”

[Reference – Annexure 3: Committee Report January 17, 2014]

---

sachin.atha

Highlight

Page 6 of 7



transmitters.

The WHO backgrounder above also made the following observations:

• Recent surveys have shown that the RF (radio frequencies)

exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels

of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of

factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding

environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio

or television broadcast transmitters.

• A common concern about base station and local wireless

network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects

that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the

only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has

been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from

exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial

facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base

stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature

increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.

• The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and

diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas

is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure

limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base

stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas

(including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times

below international standards.

• Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential

relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been

published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF

exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise,

Page 7 of 7

long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of

cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much

higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.

• From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or

long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF

signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce

generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health

effects are expected from exposure to them.

• Considering the very low exposure levels and research results

collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the

weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause

adverse health effects.

---

Annexure 1 Gujarat High Court Order of September 5, 2014

Gujarat High CourtGujarat High Court================================================================ vs AhmedabadMunicipal Corporation ... on 5 September, 2014C/SCA/5548/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5548 of 2014

With

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5597 of 2014

In


With


In

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5548 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the No Constitution ofIndia, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No

================================================================ MUKTIPARK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY - PART - IV....Petitioner(s) Versus

A H M E D A B A D M U N I C I P A L C O R P O R A T I O N & 3 . . . . R e s p o n d e n t ( s )================================================================ Appearance:

================================================================ vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ... on 5 September, 2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/40336509/ 1

MS DIMPLE A THAKER, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 1.15 MS. NIYATI K JUTHANI,ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 1.15 MR VANDAN BAXI, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADERfor the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR DEEP D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ND GOHIL,ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s)No. 4 MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. COUNSEL with MS AMRITA M THAKORE, ADVOCATE for theR e s p o n d e n t ( s ) N o . 2 N O T I C E N O T R E C D B A C K f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t ( s ) N o . 3================================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.

Page 1 of 25

C/SCA/5548/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 05/09/2014

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

By this writ-application in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioners have brought to our noticethat just adjoining to their residential flats situated near the Sola Railway Crossing, Sola, Ahmedabad, therespondent No.2, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, a company engaged in the business of telecommunications,has erected a Base Transceiver Station (BTS), popularly known as "the Wi-Fi Mobile Tower", in violation ofthe guidelines issued by the respondent No.4, Union of India, which is likely to cause a potential health hazarddue to the emission of radio active waves from the said tower.

2. The case made out by the petitioners may be summed up thus:

2.1 The petitioners are residents of Malhar Flats, situated near the Sola Railway Crossing, Sola, Ahmedabad.The residents of the Malhar Residential Flots have formed a Society, known as "the Muktipark Co-operativeSociety, Part IV", registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner No.1 is the Chairmanof the said Society.

2.2 The respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are "the State", within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution ofIndia. The

Page 2 of 25


respondent No.2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, and is engaged in the business ofcommunication.

2.3 There are around 39 flats in the Malhar Residential complex, and approximately 120 individuals areresiding in the said flats. The respondent No.2 has illegally erected a Wi-Fi mobile tower approximately two



meters close to the residential premises. The Wi-Fi mobile tower is of 4G technology. The respondent No. 2has erected the said Wi-Fi mobile tower without any permission or sanction or No Objection from theresidents of the Malhar flats or the other nearby residents.

2.4 According to the petitioners, the Wi-Fi mobile tower emits electromagnetic waves which in turn causeselectromagnetic radiation and it has been scientifically proven that the electromagnetic radiation effects aredivided into thermal and non thermal effects; the thermal effects are similar to that of cooking in themicrowave oven, whereas non-thermal effects are not well defined but, they are three to four times moreharmful than the thermal effects. The inter-ministerial report issued by the respondent No.4 indicates theadverse effects of the radiation emitted by the Wi-Fi mobile towers.

2.5 According to the petitioners, the Wi-Fi mobile towers erected therein would emit higher level ofelectromagnetic radiations. The photographs annexed with the petition clearly indicates that the Wi-Fi mobiletower is extremely close to the residential premises and the warning signs shown on the said Wi-Fi mobiletower further indicates that it is harmful for the human beings. The warning shown on the tower indicates thatthe said tower would be emitting non ionizing radiations,

Page 3 of 25


capable of causing cancer.

2.6 The Wi-Fi mobile tower operators divide a region in large number of cells and each cell is divided intonumber of sectors, the base station is normally configured to transmit different signals into each of thosesectors, wherein the majority of the towers are mounted near the residential and office buildings to providegood Wi-Fi mobile phone coverage to the users. Taking into consideration such proposition, it would be anundisputed fact that the Wi-Fi mobile tower located in the vicinity of the petitioner Society would emitradiation round the clock and the said tower would receive ten thousand to one crore times stronger signalsthan required for the Wi-Fi mobile communication.

2.7 The Wi-Fi mobile tower has been erected just outside the garden of the residential premises, wherein thechildren from the age group of 3 to 18 years play everyday in the evening. The tower has been erected at sucha place that the residents of the building would be exposed to constant radiation.

In such circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for the follow reliefs:-

(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari orany other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith take actionin accordance with law against the tower erected by the respondent No.2 just outside the said premises inquestion by directing the respondent No.1 to remove the same from said premises since the tower in questionis causing severe health hazard to the family of the petitioner and the like;

(B) Permanently restrain the respondent No.2 from erecting

Page 4 of 25


any Wi-Fi mobile tower in a close vicinity of the petitioner, which would cause health hazard due to emissionof radiation;



(C) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not permit use of the tower in question, by sealing thesaid tower, which is not permissible under the law, and for which no permission has been sought by therespondent No.4 from the respondent authorities;

(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to:-

i) Direct the respondent authorities to not permit use of the property in question, by sealing the said tower;

ii) Direct the respondent authorities to submit a report to this Court of the action taken by the respondentauthorities after the filing of this petition;

iii) Restrain the respondent No.2 from continuing the operation and commencing and usage of the said mobiletower;

iv) Restrain the respondent No.2 from using the said tower unless and until the respondent No.2 has got all thelegal permission and sanctions, which are in accordance with the General Development Control Regulationapplicable;

E) Be pleased to grant an ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (D) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above;

F) Be pleased to pass such an order and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the present case.

G) Be pleased to award costs of this petition."

3. Stance of the respondent No.4, Union of India:

All the allegations levelled in the petition are baseless and not true. The World Health Organization (WHO) inits Fact Sheet No.304, May 2006 on the Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Base Stations andWireless Technologies) has

Page 5 of 25


concluded that considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected till date, no convincingscientific evidence could be gathered to arrive at the conclusion that the weak RF signals from the basestations and wireless networks had any adverse impact on the health of the human beings.

The WHO has recommended in the Fact Sheet No. 304, May 2006 that the National authorities should adoptthe international standards to protect their citizens against the adverse levels of RF fields. The InternationalCommission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Guidelines of April, 1998 suggests that theepidemiological studies on exposed workers and the general public have shown no major health effectsassociated with typical exposure environments. The studies have yielded no convincing evidence that thetypical exposure levels lead to adverse reproductive outcomes or increases the risk of cancer. The Departmentof Telecommunications (DoT) vide letter dated 8th April, 2010 directed all the CMTS/UAS licensees forcompliance of the reference limits/levels prescribed by the ICNIRP by way of self certification of their BaseTransmitting Stations for meeting with the EMF radiation norms.

In such circumstances referred to above, the respondent No.4 has prayed that there being no merit in thispetition, the same deserves to be rejected.



4. Stance of the respondent No.1, The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation:

By filing an affidavit, the respondent-Corporation has

Page 6 of 25


stated that none of the fundamental rights or any accrued legal right of the petitioners could be said to havebeen violated by any action or inaction on the part of the respondents so as to maintain this petition. TheCorporation is governed and administered by the Rules, Policies and Guidelines framed by the Government ofIndia. The licensee company, before installation of the towers, is required to obtain the requisite permissionand clearance from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and is obliged to follow the conditions andguidelines as prescribed by the authorities. The Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring Cells(referred to as "the TERM Cell") of DoT are constituted for the purpose of vigilance, monitoring and securityfunctions. On failure of any site to meet with the requirements, the authority has been conferred with thepowers to impose heavy penalties and even order closure of the sites.

The Urban Housing Department of the State Government issued Resolutions dated 3rd October, 2012 and22nd December, 2012 respectively for levying of charges and fees for the companies providing WirelessBroad Band Services (4G Telecom Services) installing cables and preparing trench through Horizontal DirectDrilling (HDD) system and erecting of poles in the different cities of State. The resolutions referred to aboveissued by the State Government have been accepted by the Standing Committee and Board of the Corporation,vide Resolutions dated 10th January, 2013 and 29th January, 2013 respectively. In pursuance thereof, theCorporation has granted the requisite permission for installation of the 4G towers at the respective sites at the

Page 7 of 25


height admeasuring from 25 meters to 30 meters, depending upon the requirements and in conformity with theRules and Regulations.

The compliance and monitoring of the radiation levels would be taken care of by the technical and specializedagencies of the respondent herein. The permissions granted to the respondent No.2 includes unconditionalundertaking to abide with and follow all the rules, regulations and guidelines issued by the Central/StateGovernment and also issued by the DoT, so as to ensure that no radiation/frequency rays are harmful and/orhazardous to human life and inhabitation.

In such circumstances referred to above, the respondent No.1 has prayed that the petition being devoid of anymerit, the same may be rejected.

5. Stance of the respondent No.2 - Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited:

The petition is not maintainable as none of the fundamental rights or any other accrued legal rights of thepetitioners could be said to have been violated.

In the world of telecommunications, the 4-G is the fourth generation of mobile phone mobile communicationtechnology standards. The 4-G system provides mobile ultra-broadband internet access to laptops,smartphones, and other mobile devices. The conceivable applications of 4G technology include the amendedmobile web access, IP telephony, gaming services, high-definition mobile TV, video conferencing, 3D



Page 8 of 25


television, and cloud computing. The 4G technology would bring a radical change in the mobilecommunication system, education, health, banking industries and business through various equipments andwould also make the activities such as the video conferences, e-education etc. very easy. The use of thetechnology is in public interest and in no manner is detrimental to the interest of the people at large. Therespondent No.2 is a Pan India operator with the Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) spectrum across 22circles capable of offering 4G wireless services. Many operators like the respondent are holding license foroperating in more than one circle for offering the 4G wireless service. In Gujarat, apart from the respondent,there are three other operators which have been granted licence for offering the 4G wireless services. Therespondent's portfolio of products includes the high speed broadband connectivity, communications,entertainment and cloud services, which would enable the respondent to deliver the integrated digital servicesacross the nation. The respondent herein is the first telecom operator in the country to get the Pan IndiaUnified License i.e. for all 22 service areas across India, which inturn would permit the respondent to offer allthe telecom services including voice telephony under a single license. For the purpose of enabling it toprovide such services, the respondent is erecting cell poles which are also known as Base Transceiver Stations(BTS). The radio frequency (RF) energy emitted from the cell phones and the cell phone poles is anon-ionizing one like that from the visible light rays, TV broadcasting signals, FM radio, AM radio, cordlessphones, power lines etc. The radiation from the BTS is much lower than the TV signal broadcasting andFM/AM radio. The BTS in question is 30 meters in height,

Page 9 of 25


whereas the nearest building i.e. Malhar Flats, which consists of ground plus five floors, is approximately 19meters in height. The antennae which would be placed on the said BTS tower would be much higher than thesaid building. According to the DoT Guidelines, the width of the beam of the mobile antennae in the verticaldirection is very narrow and therefore, only the antennae at the same height is required to be considered asregards distance between the building and front of antennae.

It has been denied by the respondent that the BTS in question has been illegally erected and without obtainingnecessary permission. The BTS tower in question is not situated inside any private premises, but the same issituated on a public road and therefore, no NOC is required from the residents of the nearby area.

In such circumstances referred to above, it has been prayed by the respondent No.2 that the petition beingdevoid of any merit, the same may be rejected.

Analysis:

6. We have heard Ms. Niyati K. Juthani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. MihirThakore, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Amrita M. Thakore, the learned advocate appearing onbehalf of the respondent No.2, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of theAhmedabad Municipal Corporation, Mr. Vandan Baxi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearingon behalf of the State Government and Mr. Shakeel A. Kureshi,

Page 10 of 25




the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials onrecord, the only question that falls for our consideration in this petition is, whether the petitioners are entitledto any of the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

8. Ordinarily, the court would allow litigation in public interest if it is found :

(i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of Indiaor any other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement;

(ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are notin a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;

(iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of publicinjury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;

(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome inter-loper and have notapproached with mala fide intention of vindicating

Page 11 of 25


their personal vengeance or grievance;

(v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies forpolitical or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciablein such litigation;

(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken thefaith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country;

(vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out ontechnicalities;

(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or otherinformation received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a naturewhich required examination;

(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;

That before taking any action in public interest, the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not beingmisused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busy body or persons or groups with malafide objective ofeither for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to black-mailing or

Page 12 of 25


considerations extraneous to public interest.



9. The petition is substantially based on a strong fear that the radio frequency waves emitted from the BTS inquestion is likely to cause health hazards to the residents of the flats and further that the respondent No.2 haserected the BTS in violation of the guidelines issued by the DoT. It is also the case of the petitioners that theBTS has been erected without any permission or sanction of the residents of the residential premises inquestion. The petitioners, in support of their case that the BTS would be harmful to the residents of the flats,have relied upon the information downloaded from the Wikipedia (Annexure "C" to the petition), the interministerial report issued by the Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology (DoT)(Annexure "D" to the petition), and the report of the Expert Group to study the possible impacts ofcommunication towers on Wildlife including birds and bees, issued by the Ministry of Environment andForest (Annexure "E" to the petition). The petitioners have also relied upon the advisory guidelines issued bythe State Government regarding the issue of clearance for installation of the mobile towers, effective from 1stAugust, 2013, along with the additional guidelines to TERM Cells for auditing the BTS for EMF radiationeffective from 1st August, 2013, issued by the DoT.

10. From the materials on record, it appears that the respondent No.2 has been granted Pan India licenceacross 22 circles for offering the 4G wireless services. In the State of Gujarat, apart from the respondent No.2,three other operators have been granted licence for offering the 4G services. The

Page 13 of 25


entities who have been granted the 4G licences, which includes the respondent No.2, have been grantedspectrum in the 2300 MHz band. It also appears from the information available on the website of the GlobalMobile Suppliers' Association, that the 4G technology has been commercially launched by 25 operators in 20countries across the world, where also the spectrum is granted in or around the 2300 MHz band. The detailsare as under:-

Sr.No Country Operator TDD Frequency 1 Australia NBN Co 2.3 GHz 2 Australia Optus 2.3 GHz 3 BahrainMenatelcom 3.5 GHz 4 Brazil On Telecommunications 2.6 GHz 5 Brazil Sky Brazil Services 2.5 GHz 6Canada Sasktel 2.5 GHz 7 Hong Kong China Mobile Hong Kong 2.3 GHz 8 India Bharti Airtel 2.3 GHz 9Indonesia PT Internet 2.3 GHz 10 Japan Softbank XGP/LTE TDD 2.6 GHz 11 Nigeria Spectranet 2.3 GHz 12Oman Omantel 2.3 GHz 13 Poland Aem2 2.6 GHz 14 Russia Megafon/Moscow 2.6 GHz 15 RussiaMTS/Moscow 2.6 GHz 16 Russia Vanakh Telecom 2.3 GHz 17 Saudi Arabia Mobily 2.5 GHz 18 SaudiArabia STC 2.3 GHz 19 South Africa Telkom Mobile 2.3 GHz 20 Spain COTA Murca 4G 2.6 GHz 21 SriLanka Dialog Axiata 2.3 GHz 22 Sweden 3 Sweden 2.6 GHz 23 Uganda MTN 2.6 GHz 24 UK UKBroadband 3.5 GHz 25 USA Sprint 2.6 GHz

Page 14 of 25


11. It also appears from the materials on record that for ensuring uniform, faster and smoother processing ofthe applications, for clearance of sites for the purpose of setting up the BTS by entities who have been grantedthe 4G licence across the cities and towns in Gujarat, the Government of Gujarat has issued a G.R dated 3rdOctober, 2012, inter-alia giving suitable directions to all the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/ Urbanlocal authorities in the State of Gujarat and also prescribing the amount to be charged.

12. Pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution issued by the State Government, the respondent No.1 has grantedpermission in favour of the respondent No.2 dated 15th November, 2013 to set up mobile poles at the specificlocations in the city of Ahmedabad. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contention canvassed on behalf ofthe petitioners that the respondent No.2 has erected the poles without obtaining any requisite permission from



the authorities concerned. This fact has been made abundantly clear in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf ofthe respondent No.1, State of Gujarat.

13. It also appears that the BTS with which we are concerned, is 30 meters in height, whereas the height of theflat (Malhar) is about 16 meters. Further, the BTS has been erected outside the compound of Malhar flats.

14. In April, 1998, the International Commission on Non- ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), afterconducting the necessary studies, has prescribed the safe levels of EMF radiation from the base stations. Thisis evident from the

Page 15 of 25


ICNIRP guidelines produced on record by the respondent No.2 with it's affidavit-in-reply. The Table 5 thereofprescribes the basic restrictions for power density for frequencies between 10 and 300 GHz and the same are50 W/m 2 for occupational exposure and 10 W/m2 for the general public. The Table 7 thereof contains thereference levels for general public exposure to time varying electric and magnetic fields (unperturbed rmsvalues). As per this table, if the frequency range is 2 to 300 GHz, the equivalent place wave power densityshould be 10 W/m2.

15. In May 2006, the World Health Organisation issued a Fact Sheet, inter alia, making the followingobservations:-

"...recent surveys have shown that RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels ofinternational exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as proximity to the antennae and thesurrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcasttransmitters."

"A common concern about base stations and local wireless network antennae rates to the possible long termhealth effects that whole-body exposure to RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fieldsidentified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1Â°C) from exposure atvery high field intensity fund only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RFexposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increase are insignificantand do not affect human health."

"The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near basestation antennae is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys haveindicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas(including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands

Page 16 of 25


of times below international standards."

"Over the past 15 years studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer havebeen published, these studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases thersik of cancer"



"From all the evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short or long term health effects have been shown tooccur from the RF signals produced by base stations"

"International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects fromRF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and theInstitute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005). National authorities should adopt internationalstandards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areaswhere exposure limits may be exceeded."

Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincingscientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse healtheffects."

16. In the year 2008, the Government of India adopted the restrictions and limits recommended by theaforementioned ICNIRP guidelines. The letter dated 4th November, 2008, issued by the DoT mofifying theterms of the Licence Agreement in that regard has been produced by the Union of India, along with its reply(Annexure R-3). By letter dated 8.4.2010, the DoT directed all the CMS/UAS Licensees to comply with theprescribed reference limits/levels and to issue self certification in that regard in respect of their BTS. It wasalso directed that the TERM Cells would test upto 10% of new BTS sites randomly at its discretion.Additionally, the BTS sites against which if any public complaints are lodged, then the same would also betested by the TERM Cell and further if the

Page 17 of 25


site fails to meet with the EMR criterion, a penalty of Rs. 5 lac would be levied per BTS per service provider.Moreover, if the servicer provider fails to meet with the criterion within one month of the report of the TERMCell, the site would be shut down.

17. Considering the public concerns over the issue, an Inter- Ministerial Committee was constituted in August2010 to examine the effect of the EMF radiation from the BTS and mobile phones, which, after examining thematter, submitted its Report, inter alia, recommending that the RF exposure limits in India may be lowered to1/10th of the existing level.

18. In a group of writ petitions filed in the Rajasthan High Court, inter alia, seeking directions to the variousauthorities to formulate a regulatory body in relation to emission of radio frequency and electromagneticradiations from the mobile towers, seeking directions not to construct the mobile towers at certain places andseeking directions to quash the bye-laws made by the State Government of Rajasthan and the municipalitiesprohibiting erection of the mobile towers at certain places, the Rajasthan High Court delivered a judgmentdated 27.11.2012 upholding the bye-laws/policy decision of the State Government of Rajasthan and, inter alia,directing that (i) the mobile towers from hospitals and colleges be removed within 2 months, (ii) that the timeprescribed by the State Government for removal of the mobile towers from within vicinity of 500 mt from jailpremises be implemented, (iii) that removal of the mobile towers near the ancient monuments be consideredby the State Government and the local authorities, (iv) that the mobile towers on playgrounds

Page 18 of 25


may also be looked into, guideline of the DoT in regard to the mobile handsets and the mobile towers bestrictly enforced, (v) that the public be educated and made aware of the different mobile handsets and



ill-effects thereof, and of the towers, and precautions necessary as per the DoT guidelines, (vi) that the StateGovernments and the local authorities should take decision on case-wise basis with regard to the installationof towers in densely populated areas in accordance with law and removal of dangerous towers which were notestablished as per the norms and were erected without permission, (vii) that the Government should considerwhether it would be appropriate to change the constitution of the TERM Cells which are the regulatory bodiesframed by it, the directions of the DoT and the Inter-Ministerial Report with respect to constant monitoring beimplemented and that while granting such permission for the installation of towers, concerned bodies shouldconsider the number of the mobile towers in the area, the effect on the health of the people and various othersafeguards.

19. Based on such recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, the Government of India has nowadopted stricter norms for emission from the base stations, being 1/10 th of the limits prescribed by ICNIRP.Accordingly, the licence conditions of all the telecom service providers in India were again amended to thiseffect. The letter dated 26.6.2013 issued by the DoT refers to the amendment made to the Licence Agreementsin this regard.

20. The DoT has thereafter issued guidelines effective from 1.8.2013, which, inter alia, reflect the adoption of1/10 th of the

Page 19 of 25


limits prescribed by ICNIRP. The comparative table given in the reply of the respondent no. 2 and alsoreproduced hereinbelow gives the norms prevalent in India as against those prescribed by the ICNIRP:

Frequency Power Density Limit Power Density Limit (in Mega Hertz or MHz) prescribed by ICNIRPprescribed by DoT (in Watt/meter 2 or (in Watt/meter 2 or W/m2) W/m2)

900 4.5 0.45 1800 9 0.9 2100 and above 10.5 1

21. With a view to strengthen the monitoring and compliance of safety aspects/provisions in regard to radiofrequency emissions from the mobile towers, the DoT has also issued Additional Guidelines with effect from1.8.2013, wherein the DoT has prescribed the following safe distances:

No. of antenna(e) Building/Structure safe distance from the pointed in the same antenna(e) at the same height(in meters) direction

1 20

2 35

4 45

6 55

22. In the said additional guidelines, it is specified that the antennae at the same height only are to be counted,as the beam width of the mobile antennae, in the vertical direction, is very narrow. It is also stated that thedistance figures in the above table are based on empirical estimation considering that all the antennae areemitting at their maximum RF power of 20 Watts and in the same direction with the same height (a worst casescenario). In practise, the value of safe distance of buildings will depend upon the actual deployment scenariosand mostly, may be far less than depicted above.



Page 20 of 25


23. Thereafter, several faculty members at the IITs and IISc in the area of communications, being concernedabout the reports of adverse impact of radio frequency radiation from cellular towers on human health,examined the issue and prepared a Statement on the issue in September 2013 wherein they noted that the DoThad implemented the reduction of emission levels from the mobile towers in the country to 1/10 th of theICNIRP standards and that India thus became one of the 10% countries having the most stringent norms of theEM exposure. They concluded that the recommendations of the DoT were sensible and based on internationalbest practises at this point of time and that they should be strictly implemented. They further recommendedcreation of a public database where all study reports on the health implication of the EM radiation should beplaced and conduction of multiple scientific studies on the subject of health implications of the EM radiation,etc.

24. In its latest advisory on health risk associated with mobile phones and BTS, the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) has said:

" Studies to date provide no indication that environmental exposure to RF (radio-frequency) fields, such asfrom base stations increases the risk of cancer or any other disease.......".

25. In a writ petition filed in the Allahabad High Court, a direction was given to the Government of India toconstitute a committee of experts to submit a report so that the

Page 21 of 25


Government may take necessary precautions while granting permission for establishment of the mobiletowers. Such Committee was formed vide letter dated 20.8.2013, and thereafter, it has submitted its report on17.1.2014 stating that the DoT has already prescribed stricter precautionary limits for the EMF radiation fromthe mobile towers and the mobile handsets. After considering the report of the Committee, the DoT has issuedan Office Memorandum on 27.2.2014 stating that the presently prescribed limits for the EMF radiation fromthe base stations in India are one tenth of the internationally prescribed limits and that the same were adequateand need no further change at that stage. It is also decided that in order to make a deterrent effect, the penaltyfor violation of the prescribed stricter norms from the BTS towers by telecom service providers be increasedfrom Rs. 5 lac to Rs. 10 lac per BTS per incidence per operator with effect from 20.11.2013. The TERM Cellsare directed to carry out extensive audit of comprehensive self certificates and site for compliance of EMFradiation safe limits.

26. Recently, the Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology,Government of India has constituted a Committee of experts, inter alia, to initiate country wide specialscientific studies in the area of engineering and life form risk assessment and to define efficiency andemission norms for communication, etc. The said Committee has received about 150 proposals which wouldbe considered and evaluated.

27. What has really left us baffled is the fact that the radio frequency waves used for mobile phones are notcovered

Page 22 of 25




under the definition of "radiation" as given in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the non-ionizing radiations donot have the capability to ionize the matter with which they interact. The Radiation Protection Division(NRPB) of the U.K. Health Protection Agency in the year 2000 has reported that the balance of evidenceindicates that there is no general risk to the health of the people living near the base stations on the basis thatthe exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. The scientific data would indicate that the useof the mobile phone, AM Radio, FM Radio etc. is more harmful to the human beings compared to the poweremission from the Base Transceiver Stations and that of the Mobile Towers.

28. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery GramaPanchayat and ors., reported in AIR 2007 Kerala 33 has observed that the surveys conducted in proximity tothe base stations indicated that the public was exposed to extremely low intensity RF fields in the environmentand all the evidences indicated that they were unlikely to pose the risk to health.

29. We may quote some of the observations of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, as contained inparagraph 5 of the judgment, which has been relied upon by the respondent No.2.

5. We have already found that RF exposures from Mobile Base Stations are much less than from radio, FMradio and television transmissions and that the consensus of scientific community is that the radiation fromMobile Phone Base Stations is far too low to produce health hazards if people are kept away from directaccess to the antenna and the overall evidence indicates that they are

Page 23 of 25


unlikely to pose a risk to health. The strength of radio frequency fields in front of the antennae varies with thedistance. Persons standing directly in front of the antennae in these high density zones will get higherexposures. We have also found that the height of Mobile Base Station antennae is normally 36 metres and theeffect of radio waves depends on the distance from the base stations since the antennae are directedhorizontally with a 5 degree downwards tilt. Human studies pertaining to base stations conducted by Santini Ret al (2002), Bortkiewicz et al (2004) and Hutter and kundi et at (2006) do not report any quantitativeparameters related to health hazards. Therefore it can safely be concluded that the permission granted forinstallation of Mobile Base Station by the Panchayat would not cause as such any health hazards nor will itaffect the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to lifeenshrined under Article 21 includes all those aspects of life which make life meaningful, complex and worthliving. Development of technology has its own ill-effects on human beings, but, at times people will have toput up with that at the cost of their advantages. Petitioner and others for installing towers will have necessarilyto comply with the statutory provisions contained in Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules,1999 which permits construction of telecommunication towers over buildings. Petitioner has submitted that ithas already satisfied all those conditions and in such circumstance Panchayat has granted the licence.

30. We are in respectful agreement with the aforenoted observations made by the Division Bench of theKerala High Court, and propose to follow the same.

31. Before parting with this matter, we deem it necessary to mention that the concerned authorities should, byway of communication through T.V., Radio etc. bring it to the notice of the people at large that there is noreason for them to fear the erection of the Base Transceiver Station, known as the Wi-Fi

Page 24 of 25




Mobile Tower. The reason why we are saying so is that the impression in the mind of a common man is thatthe Wi-Fi Mobile Towers erected all over the State has the potential to cause health hazard due to theemission of radio active waves from the said tower.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitledto any of the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. The petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordinglyordered to be rejected. No costs.

33. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the connected Civil Applications have becomeinfructuous and are accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.)

Sd/-

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Mohandas

Page 25 of 25



Annexure 2 WHO Fact Sheet of May 2006

Electromagnetic fields (EMF)

Electromagnetic fields and public health

Base stations and wireless technologies

Backgrounder

May 2006

Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless

technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base

stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4

million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing

significantly with the introduction of third generation technology.

Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and

services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also

increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports,

schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations

and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the

population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from

base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international

exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the

proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower

or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast

transmitters.

There has been concern about possible health consequences from

exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This fact

sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from

continuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local

wireless networks.

Health concerns

A common concern about base station and local wireless network

antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole-body

exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect

from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an

increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field

intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters.

The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are

so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect

human health.

The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly

with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF

signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have

indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless

technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and

hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards.

Page 1 of 4WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

9/24/2014http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/

In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the

body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and

television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used

in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to

400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz

and 1800 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body an

efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast

stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any

adverse health consequence being established.

While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern

wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed

reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to

different RF modulations.

Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile

phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted

that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any

population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the

environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near

base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these

clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no

common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.

Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be

obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological

studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential

relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published.

These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the

transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal

studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure

to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base

stations and wireless networks.

Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in

individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations. This is because of

the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low

signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in

the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of

mobile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave

patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as

those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects.

RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than

those associated with general public exposure from base stations or

wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered sleep or

cardiovascular function has been reported.

Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific

symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and

other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet

"Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity", EMF has not been shown to cause

such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of

people suffering from these symptoms.

From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term

health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced

by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF



signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from

exposure to them.

Protection standards

International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide

protection against established effects from RF fields by the International

Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and

the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005).

National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their

citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access

to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded.

Public perception of risk

Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even

possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media

announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a

feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or

undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a

feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the

location of new base stations. Experience shows that education

programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the

public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision

process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and

acceptability.

Conclusions

Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected

to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF

signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health

effects.

WHO Initiatives

WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a

programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health

effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide

advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation

measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International

EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In

response national governments and research institutes have funded over

$250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years.

While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from

base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by

WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the

higher RF exposures from mobile phones.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO

specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from

RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then

undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008.

Further Reading



ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/documents/emfgdl.pdf

IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with

Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic

Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz"

Related links

Base stations & wireless networks: Exposures & health consequences

Fact sheet: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

WHO handbook on "Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields"

For more information contact:

WHO Media centre

Telephone: +41 22 791 2222

E-mail: [email protected]

2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fieldspdf, 100kb



Annexure 3 Committee Report of January 17, 2014, on Issues Related to EMF Radiation