The Bombay High Court has issued a stern directive to the Maharashtra state government, prohibiting the expenditure of public funds to secure celebrity endorsements for civic awareness initiatives. This ruling emerged during the ongoing hearing of a suo motu public interest litigation aimed at curbing severe noise and air pollution during festive periods across the state. The division bench, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale, expressed profound dissatisfaction upon learning that various film personalities had demanded commercial appearance fees to support campaigns intended to educate the public on anti-pollution measures.

The court’s reaction was triggered by information provided by the state’s legal representatives, who disclosed that authorities had approached several well-known celebrities to bolster the reach of anti-pollution messaging. Instead of offering their influence as a service to the city, these figures reportedly sought financial compensation for their participation. Justice Kulkarni, speaking for the bench, emphasized that the state should cease all efforts to engage celebrities who make their social involvement contingent upon payment. The bench underscored that if individuals who benefit from the city's resources are not internally driven to contribute to its welfare, the state has no business inviting them to participate at the cost of the taxpayer.

"Don't go to any celebrity who is going to charge you! If celebrities are not conscious about their own city, and they want to come only at fees, we are very sorry! We thought that there are celebrities who have a lot of social interest, sense of belonging to the city, and they would give it back," Justice Kulkarni remarked during the proceedings. The judges contrasted the reluctance of these personalities to participate in social campaigns with their frequent, prompt appearances at official police department functions, questioning why the same readiness to support a public cause was absent in the context of environmental protection.

Prioritizing Public Resources and Enforcement This directive effectively limits the financial maneuvering room of the government regarding publicity strategies. By ruling that the state exchequer must not bear the cost of public service messaging through paid endorsements, the court has redirected the focus of the authorities toward structural enforcement and grassroots outreach. The underlying concern is that expensive, one-off advertisement campaigns are insufficient to tackle the entrenched issues of noise and air pollution, particularly in high-density areas such as Mumbai’s expansive slum settlements.

In response to the judicial observations, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Police have been tasked with revamping their communication strategy. Rather than relying on high-priced celebrity faces, the administration is now expected to focus on sustained enforcement and community-led sensitization. The court has insisted that the effort must be consistent throughout the year, rather than tapering off once a festival concludes. This involves deeper coordination between local ward corporators, the municipal body, and the pollution control authorities to ensure that residents in all parts of the city, regardless of their socio-economic status, are aware of the legal prohibitions against noise and environmental hazards.

Strategic Shift in Complaint Management Beyond the issue of celebrity endorsements, the proceedings have highlighted significant gaps in the existing grievance redressal mechanisms. The court noted that administrative affidavits often lacked details regarding how citizens could lodge complaints in real-time. While noise violations during festive processions often peak at midnight, the enforcement response has historically been slow. To rectify this, the court has directed the streamlining of existing helplines. Complaints regarding noise and environmental violations are to be routed through the BMC’s 24-hour disaster helpline, 1916, which is intended to coordinate immediately with police control rooms and local stations.

The bench expressed particular concern over the persistence of firecracker usage in slum clusters, which account for a significant portion of Mumbai's geography. Observations made by the court suggest that violations in these neighborhoods are not just matters of law enforcement, but of social sensitization. The court has directed the civic authorities to work closely with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and local representatives to ensure that the message against firecrackers is delivered effectively within these communities. The bench clarified that it possesses no animosity toward these residents, but reiterated that environmental laws must be applied universally and with equal rigor across all city sectors.

Coordination and Future Compliance The current judicial posture represents a significant escalation from the court's earlier orders. On September 22, the bench had already implemented a total ban on the use of firecrackers on public streets, roads, and footpaths during festivities, while also prohibiting high-intensity laser beams and other sources of light pollution. The recent hearing served to reinforce the necessity of these measures, with the court making it clear that it expects authorities to move beyond mere paper compliance.

The involvement of the amicus curiae has been pivotal in bringing these administrative lapses to light. By focusing on the absence of dedicated grievance mechanisms, the court has pushed the administration to optimize its existing infrastructure rather than seeking costly new avenues for publicity. The amicus curiae’s input ensures that the court remains focused on the practical hurdles faced by the common citizen attempting to report pollution violations.

As the proceedings remain active, the court has adjourned the matter to November 25, 2026 . By that time, the state government, the BMC, and the Mumbai Police Commissioner are expected to have implemented a more robust, sustainable framework for compliance. The expectation is that the authorities will pivot toward community-level involvement and volunteer participation, effectively sidelining the reliance on commercial endorsements in favor of a genuine, sustained effort to preserve the city’s environmental quality. The court maintains that the ultimate responsibility for public awareness rests with the state, and that this duty must be discharged in a manner that reflects both fiscal prudence and a genuine commitment to public health. The outcome of the next session will likely be assessed based on the concrete steps taken to foster this shift in outreach, with the bench signaling that it will continue to monitor the implementation of its directives until the administrative machinery operates "in letter and in spirit."