Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In a writ petition by Masjid A. Gousiya, through its Secretary, seeking a direction to restore the use of loudspeakers in the mosque, a Division Bench of Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., dismissed the writ petition and held that held that no religious institution has a fundamental right to use loudspeakers. The Court initiated a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on recurring noise pollution in City of Nagpur.
The petitioner relied on an Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Assn. v. Commissioner of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 146, and contended that loudspeakers could be used within permissible decibel limits.
The Court asserted that the moot question is “whether for practicing religion, installation of loudspeaker is mandatory/necessary? Or, for that purpose, the religious institutions like the petitioner can, as of a right, seek relief of installation of loudspeaker?”
The Court relied heavily on God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn., AIR 2000 SC 2773 and noted the Supreme Court’s observation 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 Court emphasised the Supreme Court’s articulation of the rights of citizen, particularly those who are of tender age and those who are aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances, who are entitled to “reasonable quietness”. The Court emphasised that the rights of others to peace, sleep, study, and health are equally protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court stated that the petitioner had failed to point to any legal material showing that loudspeakers are essential to practice religion. As a result, the Court held that the claim for loudspeaker installation as a matter of right could not be sustained.
The Court referred to In Re: Noise Pollution, AIR 2005 SC 3136, where the Supreme Court noted that “anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him… Nobody can indulge into aural aggression.” The Court state that right to speech does not include a right to force unwilling listeners to hear amplified sound. The Court asserted that Article 21 includes right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution.
The Court stated that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be stretched to trespass into the ears of unwilling listeners.
“…while there is a right to speech, there exist right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or minds of others.”
Referring to detailed medical effects, the Court stated that Noise pollution is a serious public health threat and “causes ‘fight to flight’ syndrome… leading to host of health problems including cardiovascular disease, aggression, chronic fatigue… mental illness and anxiety.”
The Court acknowledged the widespread violations in Nagpur’s Civil Lines area. The Court made scathing remarks on unregulated loudspeaker use in clubs, marriage halls, temples, dargahs, sports grounds, and by vehicles with bursting silencers and stated that “there is no proper implementation of the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Rules of 2000.” The Court further stated that even in areas where senior police officers reside, violations continued unabated.
The Court reproduced extensive directions from Noise Pollution (V), In Re, (2005) 5 SCC 733, covering firecrackers, loudspeakers, vehicular noise, awareness campaigns, seizure of equipment, and observed that “these directions remain on paper.” The Court urged the State to adopt “effective mechanism” and to include consequences for failure in future orders.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and held that since the petitioner admitted there is no legal or religious basis establishing that loudspeakers are necessary to practice religion, therefore, “is not entitled to seek relief of installation of loudspeaker, as of right.”
The Court exercised its suo motu powers and took cognizance of the noise pollution that is recurring in the Nagpur City and directed the Registry to register it as Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation. The Court reiterated its earlier suggestion that loudspeakers not be installed above 15 feet without prior written approval.
The Court further expressed hope that the State Government would be sensitive to the issue involved with noise pollution which affects public health and would come up with effective solution.
[Masjid A. Gousiya v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No.852 of 2025, Decided on 01-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sanket Bhandarkar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P., Counsel for the Respondents