On 16-10-2025, following order was passed.

Heard.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with following substantive prayer :

“1. Issue an appropriate direction to the respondent no.2 and 3 to restore use of loudspeaker in petitioner mosque, in interest of justice;”

3. The petitioner is relying upon judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4729/2021, to contend that within permissible decibel, loudspeaker could be played.

4. We have gone through the judgment wherein certain directions were given to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, indicating the action to be taken by police upon complaints received about the noise pollution.

5. The moot question, according to us, however is whether for practicing religion, installation of loudspeaker is mandatory? Or, for that purpose, the religious institutions like the petitioner can, as of a right, seek relief of installation of loudspeaker?

6. The petitioner shall accordingly place on record any legal document that permits the petitioner to install loudspeaker as of right to practice religion.

7. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks.

8. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondents.”

Thus the question is whether for practicing religion, installation of loudspeaker is mandatory/necessary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he could not get any material to support on this point. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to seek relief of installation of loudspeaker, as of right. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

3. The issue of noise pollution, however, is recurring. It has been not properly addressed despite provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act of 1986’) and Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2000’) framed under the Act of 1986.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of God (Full Gospel) In India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 2773], while dealing with issue of noise pollution in context with practicing religion, in paragraph no. 2 observed as under :-

“(2) The questions involved in this appeal are that in a country having multiple religions and numerous communities or sects, whether a particular community or sect of that community can claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion? Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or tranquility of neighbourhood should be permitted? Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his

examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly, old and infirm are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.”

Thus, the Supreme Court observed that no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. The Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of other citizens entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness, particularly those who are of tender age and those who are a