Premium

Why Bombay HC said use of loudspeakers is not essential to religion

The HC was hearing a writ petition filed by two residents’ associations in Mumbai’s suburban Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) and Chunabhatti areas against the use of loudspeakers by mosques and madrasas beyond permissible decibel limits and during prohibited hours.

Bombay High Court, public address systems, loudspeakers essential religious practice, loudspeakers essential to religion, Indian express explained, explained news, current affairsCourts have consistently ruled to regulate the use of loudspeakers in public, but have kept room for exceptions. (Archive photo)

No one can claim that their right to practise religion has been violated when permission to use a loudspeaker is denied, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday.

The use of loudspeakers and public address systems (PAS) cannot be deemed an essential religious practice that ought to be protected by law, the court said.

The Bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Shyam C Chandak prescribed a graded penalty system when complaints of noise pollution are filed by citizens.

The HC was hearing a writ petition filed by two residents’ associations in Mumbai’s suburban Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) and Chunabhatti areas against the use of loudspeakers by mosques and madrasas beyond permissible decibel limits and during prohibited hours.

Law on noise pollution

Under The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, noise levels in residential areas during the day must not exceed 55 decibels and, at night, 45 decibels.

Section 38 of the Maharashtra Police Act allows police to stop music, sound, or noise, and to rescind, modify, or alter the permission to use loudspeakers.

In their affidavit of November 2023, the police submitted that noise levels at two mosques in the Kurla area were 79.4 and 98.7 decibels. The HC observed that in case several religious places in the vicinity were using loudspeakers, the cumulative sound levels of all loudspeakers/ voice amplifiers in use at a particular point of time — and not the individual ambient noise limit of 55 or 45 decibels — should be considered.

Story continues below this ad

Directions by HC

Since the petitioners had pleaded that the police were not taking action on their complaints, the court issued directions to the government and police on how to deal with complaints relating to noise pollution.

Since the plea was about noise pollution from places of worship, the court cautioned the police to act without identifying the complainant, “more so to avoid such complainants being targets of ill will and developing hatred”.

  • The state should have an inbuilt mechanism to control decibel levels in loudspeakers and other sound-emitting gadgets used at any religious place. One way to do this would be to carry out “calibration or auto-fixation” of the decibel limit in these speakers, the court said.
  • The Mumbai Police Commissioner should ensure that police officers use a decibel level measuring mobile application to check for violations.
  • The HC laid down a four-step graded penalty system for the police to initiate. While first time offenders could be let off after a “caution”, in case of repeat violations fines must be imposed on the concerned trusts or organisations, and they must be warned of strict action in case of further violations. Thereafter, if violations continue, police shall seize the loudspeakers, and can also cancel the licence for their use and initiate a complaint against those using them.

In a separate contempt plea, the HC on January 14 sought to know what action the government had taken in respect of 2,940 loudspeakers that were being used without permission. The next hearing is on March 18.

Previous ruling

The HC ruling referred to the 2016 verdict in Dr Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v Maharashtra, which had directed strict implementation of the Noise Pollution (Regulations and Control) Rules.

Story continues below this ad

The 2016 ruling by the HC said that places of worship could not escape being penalised for noise pollution, and that the “use  of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion”. The use of loudspeakers could not be claimed as a fundamental right under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution, the ruling said.

The 2016 ruling referred to past SC judgments and directed that loudspeakers cannot be used between 10 pm and 6 am. It also prohibited the use of horns in silence zones and during night hours in residential areas.

The ruling said the state government could permit the use of loudspeakers between 10 pm and midnight during cultural or religious occasions for 15 days in the calendar year, except in silence zones.

Areas up to 100 metres around schools, colleges, hospitals, religious places, and courts are silence zones.

Story continues below this ad

The 2016 ruling also allowed exceptions in time limits in closed premises for communication in auditoriums, conference rooms, community halls, and banquet halls during night hours, and in cases of public emergency.

Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement