Premium

No religion mandates loudspeakers: Nagpur Bench of Bombay HC, orders suo moto PIL on noise pollution

The court was hearing a Criminal Writ Petition filed by Masjid A. Gousiya, Gondia, through its Secretary Sayyad Iqbal Al, seeking permission to reinstall a loudspeaker at the mosque.

3 min readNagpurDec 5, 2025 10:44 PM IST

The petitioner relied on an earlier court judgment that permitted the use of loudspeakers within the prescribed decibel limits. (Credit: Unsplash)

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking restoration of loudspeaker use at a mosque, but simultaneously took suo motu cognisance of the larger issue of noise pollution in the city, converting it into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The order was passed by a division bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode.

The court was hearing a Criminal Writ Petition filed by Masjid A. Gousiya, Gondia, through its Secretary Sayyad Iqbal Al, seeking permission to reinstall a loudspeaker at the mosque. The petitioner relied on an earlier court judgment that permitted the use of loudspeakers within the prescribed decibel limits.

However, the Bench framed the core legal question as whether the installation of a loudspeaker is mandatory for practicing religion or whether it can be claimed as a legal right. The petitioner’s counsel admitted that there was no material to establish that loudspeaker use was essential to religious practice. In view of this, the court held that loudspeakers cannot be claimed as a matter of right and dismissed the petition.

Also Read | Delhi allows loudspeakers till midnight for festivals: what does the law say?

While rejecting the plea, the High Court took serious note of the recurring problem of noise pollution in the city. Relying on several Supreme Court judgments, the court reaffirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live in peace, comfort and quiet.

It observed that no one has a fundamental right to create noise, even on their own premises, if it causes nuisance to others.
The court further stated that no person has the right to disturb others in the name of religion. Activities that disrupt the peace of senior citizens, students, children, the sick and patients cannot be permitted.

Addressing the argument of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), the Bench held that while there is a right to speak, there is also a right not to listen. Sound amplified to unpleasant or intolerable levels amounts to ‘aural aggression’ and violates the right to a peaceful and pollution-free life.

Highlighting the harmful effects of noise pollution, the court noted that prolonged exposure can lead to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, mental illness and anxiety.

Story continues below this ad

Taking serious note of repeated violations in the city including from clubs, marriage halls and religious places, the court criticised the government for weak enforcement of noise control laws. It observed that police action should not be limited only to complaint-based responses and that authorities must act suo motu, especially during night hours.

Expressing concern over systemic failure in enforcement, the Bench took suo motu cognisance of the issue and directed that the matter be registered as a Public Interest Litigation.