[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Masjid A Gousiya Through Its Secretary ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:13411-DB
24.cwp.852.25 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.852 of 2025
Masjid A. Gousiya, through its Secretary, Sayyad Iqbal Ali, Gondia
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and
others
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Sanket Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for the Respondents.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 1st DECEMBER, 2025.
On 16-10-2025, following order was passed.
Heard.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with following
substantive prayer :
"1. Issue an appropriate direction to the respondent no.2 and 3 to
restore use of loudspeaker in petitioner mosque, in interest of
justice;"
3. The petitioner is relying upon judgment passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4729/2021, to
contend that within permissible decibel, loudspeaker could be
played.
4. We have gone through the judgment wherein certain
directions were given to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai,
indicating the action to be taken by police upon complaints received
about the noise pollution.
5. The moot question, according to us, however is whether
for practicing religion, installation of loudspeaker is mandatory? Or,
for that purpose, the religious institutions like the petitioner can, as
of a right, seek relief of installation of loudspeaker?
6. The petitioner shall accordingly place on record any legal
document that permits the petitioner to install loudspeaker as of right
to practice religion.
7. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks.
8. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondents."
Thus the question is whether for practicing religion, installation of
loudspeaker is mandatory/necessary.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he could
not get any material to support on this point. The petitioner, therefore, is
not entitled to seek relief of installation of loudspeaker, as of right. The
petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. The issue of noise pollution, however, is recurring. It has been
not properly addressed despite provisions of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act of 1986') and Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules of 2000') framed under the Act of
1986.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of God (Full Gospel) In
India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC
2773], while dealing with issue of noise pollution in context with practicing
religion, in paragraph no. 2 observed as under :-
"(2) The questions involved in this appeal are that in a
country having multiple religions and numerous communities or
sects, whether a particular community or sect of that community can
claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion?
Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of
microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or
tranquility of neighbourhood should be permitted? Undisputedly 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. In our view, in a civilized
society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm
persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or
during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot
be permitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the
neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of
sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his
examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their
being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly, old
and infirm are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their
leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution.
Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as
children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible to
noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured."
Thus, the Supreme Court observed 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 Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of other citizens entitled
to enjoy reasonable quietness, particularly those who are of tender age and
those who are aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re Noise Pollution
- Implementation of the Laws for Restricting use of Loudspeakers and High
Volume Producing Sound Systems : Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound
Pollution Vs. Union of India & Anr. [AIR 2005 SC 3136 : 2005 AIR SCW
3525], in para Nos.9, 10 & 86 has held as under :-
"(9) Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and
personal liberty to all persons. It is well settled by repeated
pronouncements of this Court as also the High Courts that right to
life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence. It
guarantees a right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are
included, all the aspects of life which go to make a person's life
meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm
and there is no reason why the life should not be enjoyed along with
all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace,
comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as
pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even
in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts and
cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Any noise which has the
effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life
judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance. How and
when a nuisance created by noise becomes actionable has to be
answered by reference to its degree and the surrounding
circumstances, the place and the time.
(10) Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article
19(1)(a) pleading freedom of speech and right to expression.
Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are
fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim
a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his
speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to
speech, others have a 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 mind of others. Nobody can
indulge into aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of
speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to
compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to
unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating
the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life
guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)A cannot be pressed into
service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21.
We need not further dwell on this aspect. Two decisions in this
regard delivered by High Courts have been brought to our notice
wherein the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution
has been upheld as the one guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. These decisions are Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan
Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others,
AIR (2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of
Police, Kottayam, AIR 1993 Kerala 1. We have carefully gone through
the reasoning adopted in the two decisions and the principle of law
laid down therein, in particular, the exposition of Article 21 of the
Constitution. We find ourselves in entire agreement therewith.
(86) A noise disturbance, as defined by the ordinance, is any
sound that is unpleasant, annoying, or loud; abnormal for the time or
location; and prejudicial to health, comfort, property, or the conduct
of business. Under the ordinance, it is unlawful to create a noise
disturbance anywhere during "quiet hours," including multi-family
buildings and townhouses. The "nuisance provision" prohibits some
noise disturbances anywhere at any time."
Thus, the Court held that right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not of
mere survival or existence but it guarantees a right of persons to life with
human dignity. The Supreme Court also noted that 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.
6. The Supreme Court in yet another case viz. Forum, Prevention
of Envn. and Sound Pollution Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2005 AIR SCW
5890] while dealing with the limited power of exemption from the operation
of Rules of 2000, held in paragraph no. 9 as under :-
"(9) Looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India,
we think that a limited power of exemption from the operation of the
Noise Rules granted by the Central Government in exercise of its
statutory power cannot be held to be unreasonable. The power to
grant exemption is conferred on the State Government. It cannot be
further delegated. The power shall be exercised by reference to the
State as a unit and not by reference to districts, so as to specify
different dates for different districts. It can be reasonably expected
that the State Government would exercise the power with due care
and caution and in public interest. However, we make it clear that
the scope of the exemption cannot be widened either by increasing
the number of days or by increasing the duration beyond two hours.
If that is attempted to be done, then the said sub-rule (3) conferring
power to grant exemption may be liable to be struck down as
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We also make it
clear that the State Government should generally specify in advance,
the number and particulars of the days on which such exemption will
be operative. Such specification would exclude arbitrariness in the
exercise of power. The exemption, when granted, shall not apply to
silence zone areas. This is only as a clarification as, this even
otherwise, is the position of law."
Thus the Supreme Court, while acknowledging that there are limited
powers of exemption from the operation of the Rules of 2000, also cautioned
that the power to grant exemption so conferred on the State Government
cannot be further delegated and shall be exercised by reference to the State
as a unit and not by reference to districts. The Court further clarified that
the scope of exemption cannot be widened either by increasing the number
of days or by increasing the duration beyond two hours.
7. The provisions of the Rules of 2000 and various pronouncements
on this point including the judgment of this Court at Principal Bench cited by
the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4729/2021 (Jaago Nehru Nagar
Residents Welfare Association and anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai and ors.) has significance in context with the consequences of noise
pollution. It is a serious threat to public health and welfare. It causes "fight
to flight" syndrome, releasing cortisol and other harmful chemicals into the
flood stream. Over time, these chemicals built up in the body, leading to a
host of health problems, including cardiovascular disease, aggression,
chronic fatigue, headaches, high blood pressure, mental illness and anxiety.
Noise pollution caused in between levels of 80 to 110 decibels (dB) can
cause hearing damage. Noise pollution above 120 dB can exceed human
pain threshold and noise pollution in between 140 to 160 dB can cause ear
drum rupture.
8. In this context, we would like to highlight certain issues which
are existing in Civil Lines area of Nagpur. There are various clubs and
marriage halls. Certain portion of the clubs is given for various programs,
most of which are for marriage ceremonies. The celebration is obvious. The
system/means deployed for celebration is, however, violating the provisions
of the Act of 1986 and the Rules of 2000. Not only that the system/means
deployed have output far beyond the permissible decibel volume, but are
continued beyond 10.00 p.m. Along with these means, celebrations are held
by bursting crackers that too at midnight. Further, the space/lawn is given
without proper arrangement of parking vehicles and, therefore, the vehicles
are parked on public road causing unnecessary traffic hazard to the residents
of the vicinity and the passers by. To name few such venues, are C.P. Club,
Srushti Lawn, Ladies Club, Officers Club, Rani Kothi, Vasantrao Deshpande
Sabhagruh, Jawahar Vastigruha/Sabhagruh etc. In our view, while
permitting various celebrations, these venues should take responsibility of
ensuring adherence to the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Rules of
2000. The competent authority should also examine whether change of user
of land by these venues is sanctioned under the relevant provisions of law
and if yes, how is it sanctioned without making provisions for parking space.
9. Another set of entities is Durga Mata Mandir, Shiv Hanuman
Mandir, temples in Telangkhedi vicinity, Chiranshah Baba Dargha, Hazrat
Shah Baba Dargha, Beriwala Baba Dargha etc. In these religious places,
various activities such as bhajans, ajans etc. are performed on loudspeakers
and in complete violation of the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Rules
of 2000. Then comes WCL Ground, where sports activities are organized
using loudspeakers. The Gondwana Club, on Holidays, use speakers to play
housie beyond 10.00 p.m.
10. Civil Lines area is also hub for bikes and motor vehicles with
bursting sound of silencers. There are various other challenges as well but
in context with above, if the article published in Sakal Newspaper on
27-11-2025 is to be believed, Nagpur City is amongst sixth most sound
polluted city out of ten identified in the State of Maharashtra.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submits that the
State Government has, by taking cognizance of the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case referred to above i.e. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 4729/2021, issued an order dated 21-7-2025 for taking various
measures to control sound pollution.
12. We have gone through the same to find that a mechanism is
provided to take action once complaint is received by the police. We
however, do not find any reason why should not police and the other
responsible authorities take suo moto cognizance of sound pollution,
considering powers under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2000 read with Section 15
of the Act of 1986. More so, when they have network in place. Almost in
the entire city, police undertakes patrolling. In such circumstances, police
should take cognizance of sound pollution particularly beyond period from
10.00 p.m. up to 6.00 a.m. and also where there is high density fire crackers
celebration late in the night or where the bikers/motorists are driving in a
rash and negligent manner with bursting silencers. Especially, when this is
happening in the area where there is residence of Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone - VI within whose
jurisdiction the above venues are located.
13. We are informed that the status existing in Civil Lines area is
existing in entire Nagpur City. All this is happening only because there is no
proper implementation of the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Rules of
2000. Unless effective mechanism is evolved for implementation of the
Rules of 2000 and directions given by various Courts, the order dated
21-7-2025 issued by the State Government will stand as an eye wash. We
have, in the above petition, on previous date through our order dated
13-11-2025, suggested respondent no. 1 - State Government to consider to
introduce a condition that loudspeakers or public-address system should not
be installed at a height exceeding 15 feet, unless prior written approval is
obtained from the competent authority for installation beyond that height.
No steps are taken till date.
14. In fact the directions given by the Supreme Court as back as in
the year 2005 in the case of Noise Pollution (V), IN RE (Lahoti, C.J.)
[(2005) 5 SCC 733] are still awaiting implementation. The directions issued
read as under :-
"XII. Directions
It is hereby directed as under:-
(i) Firecrackers
174. 1. On a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present
system of evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the
other where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of
chemical composition, we feel that the latter method is more
practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be followed
unless and until replaced by a better system.
2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake
necessary research activity for the purpose and come out with the
chemical formulae for each type or category or class of firecrackers.
The DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as well as the
maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in
manufacturing firecrackers.
3. The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers
into two categories- (i) Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii)
Colour/light emitting firecrackers.
4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting
firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose
restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light emitting
firecrackers.
5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker
mention details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the
requirement as laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part of
the manufacturer to mention the details or in cases where the
contents of the box do not match the chemical formulae as stated on
the box, the manufacturer may be held liable.
6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be
manufactured bearing higher noise levels subject to the following
conditions: (i) The manufacturer should be permitted to do so only
when he has an export order with him and not otherwise; (ii) The
noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to the noise
standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be
exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers should have
a different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India;
(iv) They must carry a declaration printed thereon something like
'not for sale in India' or 'only for export to country AB' and so on.
(ii) Loudspeakers
175. 1. The noise level at the boundary of the public place,
where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise
source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient
noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower.
2. No one shall beat a drum or tom-tom or blow a trumpet
or beat or sound any instrument or use any sound amplifier at night
(between 10.00 p.m. and 6 a.m.) except in public emergencies.
3. The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound
system shall not exceed by more than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air
quality standard specified for the area in which it is used, at the
boundary of the private place.
(iii) Vehicular Noise
176. No horn should be allowed to be used at night (between 10
p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential areas except in exceptional
circumstances.
(iv) Awareness
177. 1. There is a need for creating general awareness towards
the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Suitable chapters may be
added in the text-books which teach civic sense to the children and
youth at the initial/early level of education. Special talks and lectures
be organised in the schools to highlight the menace of noise pollution
and the role of the children and younger generation in preventing it.
Police and civic administration should be trained to understand the
various methods to curb the problem and also the laws on the
subject.
2. The State must play an active role in this process.
Residents Welfare Associations, Service Clubs and Societies engaged
in preventing noise pollution as a part of their projects need to be
encouraged and actively involved by the local administration.
3. Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of
festivals, events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are
likely to be used, need to be carried out. The above said guidelines
are issued in exercise of power conferred on this Court under Articles
141 and 142 of the Constitution. These would remain in force until
modified by this Court or superseded by an appropriate legislation.
(v) Generally
178. 1. The States shall make provision for seizure and
confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipments
as are found to be creating noise beyond the permissible limits.
2. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control)
Rules, 2000 makes provision for specifying ambient air quality
standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones, categorization
of the areas for the purpose of implementation of noise standards,
authorizing the authorities for enforcement and achievement of laid
down standards. The Central Government/State Governments shall
take steps for laying down such standards and notifying the
authorities where it has not already been done."
15. These directions remain on paper. We hope, the State
Government will be sensitive to the issue involved which affects public
health and will come up with effective solution. One of the best ways of
implementation of rules or orders is to provide the consequence of failure to
implement rules or orders. The State Government may consider to issue
fresh order with consequence of failure to implement the order.
16. We accordingly take suo moto cognizance of the noise pollution
that is recurring in the Nagpur City and direct Registry to register it as Suo
Moto Public Interest Litigation.
17. The article dated 27-11-2025 published in Sakal Newspaper is
annexed with this order as Annexure - 1, the copy of order dated 21-7-2025
issued by the Government of Maharashtra is annexed as Annexure - 2. The
Registry shall place the suo moto public interest litigation before appropriate
Bench for further consideration.
(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/12/2025 14:38:19
