INTRODUCTION
The Nagpur High Court, in a divisional bench comprising Justices Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, held that no religion has a fundamental right to use loudspeakers on December 1, 2025. The court dismissed the petition seeking permission for the installation of loudspeakers in the mosque. It took a suo motu cognizance of the issue of noise pollution and directed the registration of a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) to address the issue at hand.
BACKGROUND
The issue arose when the petitioner (Masjid Gousiya), after being objected to the use of loudspeakers by police authorities in October 2205, filed a criminal writ petition in the court, asking it to issue a directive on the restoration of loudspeakers. He used the writ of madamus (we command) and stated the use of loudspeakers was necessary for his Aaazan (prayer). However, during the hearing, the High Court asked the petitioner to submit the relevant religious texts supporting his claims. Nevertheless, the petitioner admitted that no such religious texts address his points raised in the court. Thus, the court held that the use of loudspeakers was not a mandatory or essential religious practice.
KEY POINTS
- No fundamental right to use loud loudspeaker.
The court, after finding no evidence of the use of loudspeakers, concluded that the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes was not an essential practice. The Court stated that no religious practices should be performed by disturbing the rights of another individual, as stated in the case of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 2773].
2. Right to speech vs Right to listen
The Court, after referring to the case of Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution Vs. Union of India & Anr. [AIR 2005 SC 3136: 2005 AIR SCW 3525], stated that while there is a right to speech, there is also a right to listen or not listen. Thus, emphasizing the need to hold the peace of another individual while protecting the religious practices of another as enshrined under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
3.Highlighted the health hazards of noise pollution and took suo motu cognizance and directed the registration of the PIL.
The court rightly pointed out the cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, aggression, and anxiety that would be caused due to noise pollution. This was also held in the case of Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association and anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and ors (Criminal Writ Petition No. 4729/2021). Thus, in order to have an effective mechanism, the court directed the registration of a PIL to solve the issue at hand.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Court held that though the religious institutions have the right to practice their religion under Article 25, such rights did not extend to “aural aggression” or disturb the fundamental right of citizens to live in peace guaranteed under Article 21.
The Bench, therefore, has taken suo motu cognizance of the widespread violation of norms relating to noise control in Nagpur and converted the matter into a PIL. The Court has pulled up the police and state authorities for their “complaint-driven” approach and ordered them to register the PIL to monitor systemic enforcement failures.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Nagpur High Court has sent a strong message to society about public health. It drew a clear line of difference between the right to religion and the right to peace and has also initiated a suo motu cognizance by directing a PIL to address the issue of noise pollution.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Sharanya M
