Back
Asks to Clarify Mosque Loudspeaker Removals, Awaits Response
The on Thursday directed the to clarify whether it had instructed police to remove loudspeakers from mosques across the state, as it heard a alleging that police had been pressurizing religious institutions without any written order. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee declined to grant sought by the petitioner but posted the matter for further hearing on .
"Please apprise us if any sort of activity has been done by State or not,"
the Bench told
, who sought time to obtain instructions from authorities regarding the allegations. The court's query came after
, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that loudspeakers had been removed from approximately 4,000 mosques across West Bengal following verbal directions from police officials.
The Case and the Claims
The PIL, filed by Md Danish Farooqui, challenges what it terms "" by police in Hooghly and other districts to religious institutions—including temples and mosques—to remove loudspeakers from their premises. According to the petitioner, these directives were issued without any written order, notification, or prior technical assessment of noise levels, calling into question whether proper procedures under the , were ever initiated.
Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted that police officials had been visiting mosques and insisting on the removal of loudspeakers without providing any written documentation. He argued that such actions infringed upon the constitutional rights guaranteed under , which secures the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
"The police issued a direction to remove all loudspeakers from mosques,"
Mr. Bandyopadhyay argued, adding that similar meetings had been conducted across various districts, suggesting a "pattern of action" by law enforcement.
The Bench's Scepticism
The Bench, however, expressed significant reservations about the petitioner's claims. Justice Chakraborty questioned the basis of the 4,000-mosque figure, asking directly:
"Where do you find 4,000 mosques?"
The court also pressed on the relief sought, with Mr. Bandyopadhyay requesting an order allowing the continued use of loudspeakers subject to existing noise-level restrictions.
When the petitioner's counsel sought a blanket interim order preventing the state from removing loudspeakers, the court questioned its enforceability without specific instances.
"If we pass this order, when it comes to us in
, how will we implement that order? There must be specific instances,"
the court observed. A subsequent request to confine any
to Hooghly district was also declined.
The State's Strong Defence
, representing the state, urged the court to dismiss the petition with costs, arguing that it failed to identify any specific police officer, mosque, or instance of alleged removal.
"Not a single imam has come forward,"
Mr. Mitra submitted, challenging the petitioner's credibility in claiming knowledge of such widespread action without providing any evidence.
The Advocate General's office argued that if such directives had indeed been issued—without any authorization—it would constitute a grave breach of protocol, rendering the government itself victim to procedural violations. However, he maintained that the petition's lack of particulars undermines its entire premise, suggesting the allegations are either fabricated or the result of a miscommunication.
Legal Complexity and Implications
The case highlights a complex legal tangle between the right to religious freedom under Article 25, the permissible restrictions under the , and the state's police power to regulate public order and health. While courts have historically permitted loudspeaker use subject to sound-level limits and designated timings—typically between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM—they have also upheld the state's authority to regulate noise pollution caused by religious practices.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the existing legal framework already provides sufficient safeguards, arguing that police could prosecute individual violations rather than impose an effective blanket prohibition.
"If I have violated, then start a criminal case. The court will decide. Here police is judging the entire case and not allowing any use of loudspeakers,"
Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted, invoking constitutional protections against religious discrimination.
Judicial Balancing Act
The Bench's cautious approach reflects the judiciary's broader struggle to balance competing constitutional interests. On one hand, the court must protect guaranteed under . On the other hand, it must contend with the practical realities of administrative governance and the state's responsibility to control noise pollution under the .
Notably, the court pointed out that the petitioner's complaint pertains specifically to loudspeaker removal—not the practice of Azaan itself—and questioned whether loudspeakers are essential to the performance of religious duties under the Constitution.
"Before 6am you couldn't use anyway. So I want to know that do you need to use loudspeaker to perform Azaan?"
the Bench asked.
Looking Ahead
The case has now been reserved for a hearing on , by which time the state government is expected to file its response. The court has directed the state to clarify whether any police action was taken, while providing the government an opportunity to deny or explain the allegations. The outcome will have significant implications for how religious freedom claims interact with regulatory frameworks governing noise pollution—and whether police, acting without written orders, can effectively impose administrative restrictions that touch upon constitutional guarantees.
For the legal community, the judgment is being closely watched as a bellwether for similar disputes across India, where disputes over loudspeaker use in religious places have become increasingly common. The has previously upheld the power of courts to impose under , but has also struck down disproportionate provisions that go beyond what is necessary to achieve legitimate state interests.
Conclusion
The 's refusal to immediately grant interim relief signals a cautious, fact-driven approach to what is both a claim and an challenge. As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on the state's response—and whether the alleged 4,000-mosque removal campaign was an isolated act by overzealous police officers or part of a broader policy position.
For now, the court's message is clear: the state must explain itself, but petitioners must also bring specific, verifiable claims rather than relying on generalized assertions. The next hearing will determine whether this becomes a landmark on religious freedom and administrative action or a footnote in the ongoing debate over India's secular framework.
