Back
Reserves Order on PIL Alleging Police to Remove Mosque Loudspeakers
The on Tuesday reserved its order on a that alleges police authorities in West Bengal have been orally directing mosque committees to remove loudspeakers, despite no demonstrated violation of . A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee heard the matter and indicated that the substance of the grievance could not be ignored by .
The PIL, filed by practising advocate , raises concerns about a purported new practice in the state where police issue —without any written public notice or formal order—and then proceed to enforce removal of loudspeakers from mosques. The petitioner argues that such actions violate the framework laid down by the on the use of , which mandates that interference must be based on concrete evidence of exceeding prescribed decibel levels.
Background of the Case
The controversy stems from alleged meetings between police officers and mosque representatives, during which the latter were reportedly told to remove loudspeakers. The petitioner contends that no prior measurement of sound levels was carried out, nor was any established, before these verbal directives were issued. The case has drawn attention to the balance between religious freedom and noise pollution regulation, a recurring legal issue in India.
The Court had earlier directed the Advocate General to obtain instructions on the allegations. However, the State’s response, as submitted by , was that “nothing was done” by the police authorities. When the Bench asked whether even the alleged meetings had taken place, the Advocate General replied in the negative.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
During the hearing, the State raised a on the of the PIL. Advocate General Mitra argued that the petition was based on alleged from unidentified authorities, and that no document demonstrated any . He further contended that the allegations were vague, relying heavily on newspaper reports and unnamed Imams or mosque representatives who had not come forward to depose before the Court.
“This plea is on the basis of a verbal instruction issued by the authority. They have not mentioned which authority issued these directions,” the Advocate General submitted. He also referred to several judgments concerning the requirements of pleadings in PIL proceedings, arguing that the present petition did not meet those standards.
The Bench, however, sought clarification regarding an earlier judgment containing guidelines regulating the use of loudspeakers. It observed that under the existing guidelines, police authorities could take action only if the prescribed decibel level was exceeded, and asked the State to respond to the petitioner’s contention that the police were acting beyond those parameters.
Petitioner’s Response
, appearing for the petitioner, strongly opposed the objection. He argued that the concept of PIL had evolved through the ’s jurisprudence, particularly through judgments associated with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, and that initial PILs did not require the level of factual detail expected in ordinary civil proceedings.
“Let’s understand a PIL. Is it like civil or criminal trial? That 100% evidence needs to be given?” Bandopadhyay asked, emphasising that PIL is not adversarial litigation. He submitted that the grievance or cause of action is more important, and it is the duty of the Court to examine the grievance.
“Even in police overaction this Court doesn’t question who the police officer is. Grievance is that the police came and the meeting was held,” he submitted. He further argued that the State’s repeated contention that no Imam or mosque representative had approached the Court defeated the very character of a PIL. “If they come then it doesn’t remain a PIL anymore,” he said.
Bandopadhyay also clarified that the petitioner was not claiming an unrestricted right to use loudspeakers. “I am entitled to use loudspeakers within the permissible limits,” he said, adding that the authorities had not ascertained any concrete infraction of the rules. He alleged that a new practice had developed in the state whereby there was no written public notice or formal order, only followed by police action.
Court’s Observations
At one stage, the Bench observed that the grievance raised by the petitioner had to be examined and that could not be allowed to overshadow the substance of a PIL. “Yes, grievance has to be seen, cannot be gone into,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that the petitioner was not seeking an unrestricted right to use loudspeakers, but rather arguing that as long as the use remained within the parameters laid down by the , the authorities could not interfere without establishing a violation.
When the petitioner sought permission to place a supplementary affidavit containing further details, the Bench indicated that it was proceeding to decide the matter. “We have heard you,” the Court said, reiterating that it was deciding the matter.
Legal Analysis
The case raises important questions about the procedural requirements for PILs and the scope of police action in regulating noise pollution. The has consistently held that noise pollution must be controlled within permissible limits, but that any enforcement action must be based on objective measurement and . The alleged use of without formal orders or measurement of decibel levels could amount to an .
The State’s objection on highlights the tension between the liberal PIL regime and the need for specific pleadings. While the has relaxed strict rules of pleading in PILs, it has also cautioned that petitions must be based on concrete facts and not merely on rumours or newspaper reports. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how courts balance these competing considerations.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of framing PILs with sufficient factual basis, even if all evidence is not available at the outset. It also demonstrates the strategic use of objections by the state to challenge PILs that rely on informal sources.
The case may also influence how police authorities across the country handle noise complaints, particularly in religious settings. If the Court upholds the petitioner’s grievance, it could mandate a stricter adherence to , including prior measurement and written orders, before any directive to remove loudspeakers is issued.
Conclusion
The ’s reserved order will be closely watched by legal professionals, religious institutions, and civil liberties advocates. The case encapsulates the delicate balance between the right to religious practice, the need to regulate noise pollution, and the . As the Court deliberates, the underlying question remains: can police authorities enforce decibel limits through informal , or must they follow a transparent, evidence-based procedure? The answer will likely shape the future of noise regulation in India.
