Blaring Defiance: Gujarat HC Sounds Alarm on Noise Pollution, Threatens Contempt Against Lax Police

In a fiery oral order on April 27, 2026, the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad pulled no punches, warning police officers and state authorities of contempt proceedings if they fail to enforce long-standing Supreme Court directives curbing noise pollution. The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada —hearing a contempt application filed by Amit Manibhai Panchal in a 2022 Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 101/2022)—decried the persistent racket from DJ trucks and loudspeakers, especially during night hours. Echoing media reports, the court highlighted how violations continue unabated despite state notifications reinforcing a strict no-loudspeaker zone from 10 PM to 6 AM.

Roots of the Racket: A PIL Born from Public Agony

The saga traces back to Writ Petition (PIL) 101/2022, where petitioner Amit Panchal raised alarms over rampant noise pollution in Gujarat, flouting Supreme Court mandates. A prior Division Bench order on September 15, 2025—by Justices A.S. Supehia and L.S. Pirzada—dissected the crisis, referencing the landmark Noise Pollution (V) In Re case. Despite policies like the Gujarat Pollution Control Board's (GPCB) 2019 notification mandating sound limiters and Home Department circulars in 2024 and 2025, implementation has been "on paper only." Permissions for DJ trucks and loudspeakers are issued indiscriminately, without verifying sound capacities, leaving citizens—especially the vulnerable—exposed to health hazards.

Petitioner's Plea vs. State's Promises: A Clash of Words and Deeds

Amit Panchal, appearing party-in-person, hammered home the defiance of Supreme Court guidelines, now two decades old. He pointed to unchecked nighttime blaring and absent sound limiters as direct contempt of court orders.

Respondents, represented by Additional Advocate General Manisha Shah for state authorities (Respondents 2 and 3), submitted affidavits showcasing SOPs and notifications dated March 21, 2024; May 4, 2024; and June 16, 2025. These outline responsibilities for District Magistrates, Police Commissioners, and Deputy Commissioners under Noise Pollution Rules 2000, holding erring police personally liable. GPCB (Respondent 3) emphasized mandatory sound limiters in all systems, with confiscation for violations. Yet, the court noted a glaring gap: promises abound, but action lags, with officials "indiscreetly issuing permissions."

Judicial Symphony: Harmonizing Precedents with Harsh Reality

The bench leaned heavily on Noise Pollution (V) In Re with Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution vs. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 783, quoting SC limits—no more than 10 dB(A) above ambient at public boundaries, or 75 dB(A), whichever lower; no drums or amplifiers at night except emergencies; private systems capped at 5 dB(A) over ambient. It invoked Priya Gupta vs. Additional Secretary (2013) 11 SCC 404, stressing Article 141's binding force: no court or authority can ignore SC law.

The court refused to tweak SOPs but zeroed in on enforcement, lamenting how Gujarat faces the same menace 20 years post-SC guidelines. Home Secretary Nipuna Torwane and GPCB Chairman R.B. Barad, appearing virtually, assured strict compliance.

Key Observations: Court's Blunt Quotes Cut Through the Noise

"It is very painful to note that even after 20 years from the issuance of the guidelines and the directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , we are facing the issue of Noise Pollution in the State of Gujarat."

"The competent officer/authority is indiscreetly issuing permissions to allow the use of loudspeakers and DJ Trucks without properly verifying their capacity to generate sound beyond the permissible limits."

"This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to the complete defiance of the directions and watch the vulnerable class of citizens suffer."

"We make it clear that if such directions... are not complied with by the Police Officers and other authorities... shall be liable for proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ."

Gavel's Ultimatum: Report Ordered, Next Hearing Looms

The court adjourned the matter to June 18, 2026, directing a detailed compliance report on SC directives, GPCB's 2019 notification, and state circulars. Police in-charges face direct responsibility for nighttime violations (10 PM-6 AM), with mandates to confiscate non-compliant systems, including those on DJ trucks. Non-feasance invites contempt charges.

This ruling amplifies pressure on Gujarat's enforcement machinery, potentially reshaping festival seasons and public events. For residents tormented by endless decibels, it's a beacon of hope—if officials finally tune in.