Bombay High Court: While dismissing a PIL seeking removal of illegally erected telecommunication (mobile) towers with multiple antennas at the Petitioners’ premises and other densely populated areas, alleging health hazards from electromagnetic radiation; the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., noted that the issues raised in the PIL were squarely covered by several judgments of various High Courts, including of Bombay High Court, which had repeatedly repelled apprehensions about health hazards due to electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone towers. The Court pointed out that the Petitioners did not place any independent conclusive material to prove the health hazards and, further taking note of the new regulatory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, declined to order removal of the telecommunication towers.
Background:
Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana, claimed to have been formed by the Petitioners, alleged that telecommunication towers erected in densely populated areas caused serious health hazards, including cancer, and violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’), seeking directions against the Pune Municipal Corporation, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, and Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority to remove these telecommunication towers. The petition also prayed for directions to Department of Telecommunications (‘DoT’) and the State Government to form Grievance Redressal Committees as per guidelines dated 01-08-2013, and to hold public hearings before installing telecommunication towers.
The Petitioners contended that many towers were installed without development permissions and cited WHO’s classification of tower radiation as Class IIB carcinogenic. It was argued that the Petitioners and their family members had suffered ailments due to health hazards from telecommunication towers, and many had succumbed to cancer caused by electromagnetic radiations. The Petitioners had produced a list of telecommunication (mobile) towers erected without securing development permissions from respective local authorities and contended that hundreds of telecommunication towers had been installed in Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad cities without permission from local authorities, and dues of Rs 650 crores towards property tax were pending from such illegally erected towers. The scope of the petition was not restricted to permissions but highlighted the wider issue of adverse health effects. They referred to the Telecommunications Act and Telecommunications (Right to Way) Rules, 2024, (‘2024 Rules’) submitting that the Act and Rules did not permit illegal erection of telecommunication towers.
The counsel for Tower and Infrastructure Providers Association (‘Association’) opposed the petition, submitting that there was no concrete evidence of telecommunication towers having any adverse impact on health of residents. It was submitted that under the Telegraph Right of Rules 2016 (‘2016 Rules’) read with clarification dated 22-05-2018 issued by DoT, telecommunication tower could be erected on payment of administrative fees of Rs 10,000 and there was no requirement of seeking development permission under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’).
A reliance was placed upon the Telecommunications Act effective from 26-06-2024 and the 2024 Rules. In pursuance of the Act and Rules, Government Resolution (‘GR’) dated 05-02-2025 and circular dated 21-05-2025 were issued directing local authorities to follow the provisions. Under the new framework, development permission was not necessary, and installation could be done by issuing an intimation in writing. It was argued that mobile towers and services were treated as essential services aiding economic growth.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court first addressed the grievance of the Petitioners regarding health hazards allegedly caused by electromagnetic radiations from telecommunication towers. The Court relied on Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 97, where it was observed that the scientific material, did not indicate any identifiable risk of serious harm on account of non-ionized radiation emanating from TCS/BS and Equipments for Telecommunication Network. The Court found that the issue of telecommunication towers causing any health hazard to the residents has been conclusively decided by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Biju K. Balan (supra). The Court referred to Indus Tower Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat Tanang, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2232, wherein it was held that mobile phones were no longer a luxury but an inevitable necessity, and mobile towers could not be summarily dispensed with on misplaced information. The Court emphasised that several High Court judgments had repeatedly repelled apprehensions about health hazards from electromagnetic radiations, and since Petitioners had not placed any independent conclusive material, the prayer for removal of mobile towers was not accepted.
The Court further observed that the second grievance regarding installation without permissions was met with the Association’s plea that development permission under the MRTP Act was not required for towers on private properties. The Court noted that installation could be undertaken by giving intimation in writing and paying prescribed fees. The Court also highlighted that the Association had placed on record the regulatory framework and had relied on DoT advisory guidelines of 2013, followed by the State’s notification dated 04-03-2014 and the Regulations for setting up telecommunication sites.
The Court emphasised that the 2016 Rules had provided for a one-time administrative fee of Rs 10,000 for tower installation, followed by the State’s Telecom Infrastructure Policy dated 17-02-2018 and the Supplementary Policy dated 08-07-2019. It was noted that the statutory framework did not require permissions from local authorities under the MRTP Act. The Court further highlighted that since the petition concerned towers erected before the Telecommunications Act and the 2024 Rules came into effect, and as those now govern the area, the Court was not inclined to grant relief for removal of any tower site complained of by the Petitioners.
Furthermore, taking note of the new statutory framework under Telecommunications Act, 2023 and Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, which now governs the installation, operation and maintenance of telecommunications towers, the Court pointed out that the present PIL was filed complaining about erection of telecommunication towers before coming into effect of Telecommunications Act and the Right of Way Rules. The Court, therefore, dismissed the PIL petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no order as to costs.
[Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3006, decided on 26-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Shriya Awale
For the Respondents: Sugandh Deshmukh, Yatin Malvankar, Irvin D’souza, Aniket Kanawade, Vaibhav Thorve, O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader, R. A. Salunkhe, AGP, Deepak R. More, Shivram A. Gawade, A.R.S. Baxi, Akshay Naidu Nidhi Chauhan i/b Vishwanath Patil.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
