Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Expand Original Order's Scope; Noise Pollution Rules Don't Cover Online Music Platforms: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-09-02

High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea on Songs Glorifying Violence, Clarifies Scope of 2019 Noise Pollution Order

CHANDIGARH – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a 2019 judgment aimed at curbing noise pollution and the glorification of violence, ruling that the original order does not extend to regulating content on online music platforms.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma, while dismissing the plea filed by Advocate Hardik Ahluwalia, cautioned the petitioner to exercise due care in the future but refrained from imposing costs, noting he was a young member of the Bar.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Hardik Ahluwalia, appeared in person to argue that the state authorities, including senior police officials, had willfully disobeyed a comprehensive 2019 judgment by a Division Bench in the case CWP-6213-2016 . He contended that songs glorifying liquor, drugs, and violence continue to be played at public events and are readily available on streaming platforms like YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Music, in direct violation of the court's directions.

The original 2019 judgment had issued a set of fifteen mandatory directions to the states of Punjab, Haryana, and the UT of Chandigarh. These directions primarily focused on regulating noise pollution by restricting the use of loudspeakers, banning pressure horns, and setting time limits for public address systems. Crucially, one direction tasked the Director General of Police to "ensure that no songs are played glorifying the liquor, wine, drugs and violence in any song even in live shows."

Petitioner's Arguments

Mr. Ahluwalia's primary grievance was the continued and widespread availability of such content, particularly on digital platforms, which he argued was a blatant disregard for the court's order. He sought contempt action against the responsible authorities for failing to curb this menace.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Sudeepti Sharma, after a careful review of the 2019 judgment, concluded that the contempt petition was misconceived and lacked foundational facts. The Court underscored that contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal in nature and requires a high standard of proof, which the petitioner failed to meet.

On Lack of Specifics: The Court noted that the petition was deficient in specifics. It highlighted that the petitioner had not provided any concrete instance of a violation.

"No specific instance has been pleaded such as the date, venue, event, or the identity of the persons or authorities where the directions extracted above were violated... the petitioner has not identified any particular live show or public event in which such songs were played, nor any responsible officer who, despite knowledge, failed to act."

On the Scope of the Original Judgment: More fundamentally, the Court clarified the scope and intent of the 2019 Division Bench order. It observed that the judgment was primarily aimed at tackling noise pollution in physical spaces.

"A careful and contextual reading of the aforesaid directions reveals that the Division Bench was primarily addressing the menace of noise pollution and ensuring enforcement of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000... The directions regulate the use of loudspeakers, public-address systems and sound- amplifying devices in physical spaces..."

The Court explicitly stated that the 2019 directions did not cover online content and that using a contempt petition to expand their scope was inappropriate.

"The Division Bench directions reproduced above do not regulate the hosting or transmission of online content... To the extent the petitioner seeks regulation or take-down of content on digital platforms, that is beyond the four corners of the directions issued by Division Bench... and is not a ground of civil contempt of that said judgment."

The judgment advised that remedies for regulating online content must be sought under the legal framework governing digital intermediaries, not through a contempt action related to a noise pollution order.

Final Decision

Finding that the petitioner failed to establish any willful disobedience of the 2019 judgment, the High Court dismissed the contempt petition, deeming it devoid of merit and not maintainable in law. While considering imposing costs for filing a "misconceived" petition, the Court exercised restraint and instead issued a word of caution to the young advocate.