No Conclusive Evidence of Health Hazards from Telecom Towers; No Removal Ordered: Bombay High Court - 2025-08-28

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Removal of Telecom Towers Over Health Concerns

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the removal of telecommunication towers from densely populated areas in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad, citing alleged health hazards from electromagnetic radiation. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that there is no conclusive scientific material to support the petitioners' apprehensions and that the issue is squarely covered by previous judgments.

The court also declined to order the removal of towers alleged to be illegally constructed, noting the new regulatory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which governs their installation.

Background of the Case

The PIL was filed by Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana and several individuals who claimed that radiation from telecom towers was causing severe health issues, including cancer, high blood pressure, and insomnia, among residents. The petitioners shared personal anecdotes of family members succumbing to cancer, which they believed was a direct result of living near these towers.

The petition raised two primary grievances:

1. The adverse health impact of electromagnetic radiation, violating the 'Right to Life' under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. The illegal erection of numerous towers without requisite permissions from local authorities like the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC), leading to unpaid property taxes.

Petitioners' Arguments

Ms. Shriya Awale, representing the petitioners, argued that the risk to human health should outweigh developmental needs. She contended that many towers were installed illegally and sought their immediate removal. The petitioners relied on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) and Another vs. Union of India , which had upheld restrictions on installing towers in certain areas.

Respondents' Counter-Arguments

Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, counsel for the Tower and Infrastructure Providers Association (TAIPA), countered that the petitioners' fears were baseless and not supported by concrete scientific evidence. He argued that the matter had already been settled by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in the 2019 case of Biju K. Balan and Others vs. State of Maharashtra , which found no identifiable risk of serious harm from such radiation.

Furthermore, Mr. Deshmukh explained that the legal landscape has evolved. Under the new Telecommunications Act, 2023 , and the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 , seeking development permission from local authorities under the MRTP Act is no longer mandatory for installing towers on private property. A simple intimation and payment of administrative fees suffice.

Court's Reasoning and Precedent

The High Court systematically addressed both grievances raised by the petitioners.

On Health Hazards: The bench firmly stated that the issue of health hazards from telecom towers is "no more res integra" (a matter not yet decided). It extensively quoted its own precedent in Biju K. Balan , which had concluded that "the scientific material, as of today, does not indicate any identifiable risk of serious harm on account of non-ionized radiation."

The court observed:

"Thus, the issue appears to be squarely covered by several judgments of various High Courts, including of this Court, which have repeatedly repelled the apprehension expressed about the cause of health hazards due to electromagnetic radiations emanating out of mobile phone towers. Petitioners have not placed any independent conclusive material for this Court to take a different view..."

The bench distinguished the Rajasthan High Court's ruling in Justice I.S. Israni , noting that it was already considered and differentiated in the Biju K. Balan judgment.

On Illegally Erected Towers: Regarding the petitioners' second grievance, the court took note of the comprehensive statutory framework now in place. The judgment detailed the evolution of rules, from the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, to the recent Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The court highlighted Section 14(3) of the new Act, which clarifies that a telecommunication network is not to be considered part of the property it is installed on for the purposes of property tax or other levies. It also pointed to the new Right of Way Rules, 2024, which streamline the installation process on private properties.

Given this new framework, the court concluded:

"After noting the aforementioned statutory framework governing installation of telecommunication towers, we are not inclined to grant the relief of removal of any telecommunication tower site complained of by the Petitioners."

Final Verdict

Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's consistent stance that policy decisions on telecommunication infrastructure should be based on established scientific consensus rather than unsubstantiated fears. The judgment also signals the legal enforceability of the new, simplified norms for installing telecom towers under the 2023 Act.