The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the widespread and recurring problem of noise pollution across Nagpur city. The bench, presided over by Justices Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, explicitly named multiple clubs, temples and dargahs — pointing to the frequent use of loudspeakers during bhajans, azans and other celebrations and events. These activities, the court noted, are being conducted in clear violation of the law as laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
In the same order, the court dismissed a petition from a mosque — Masjid A. Gousiya, located in Gondia — which had sought restoration of permission to use loudspeakers for religious prayers. The petitioner failed to produce any material demonstrating that use of loudspeakers is essential to the religious practice of Islam. On that basis, the court held that installation of loudspeakers cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The bench referred to previous judgments, including the case God (Full Gospel) In India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association & Ors, to reaffirm that no religion prescribes that prayers must be conducted in a manner that disturbs public peace through voice amplifiers or drums. The court indicated that while freedom of religion is protected, it does not extend to disturbing the tranquility of others by using devices that project sound beyond permissible limits.
The court also made reference to the broader obligations under the 2005 ruling in In Re Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers and High‑Volume Producing Sound Systems. That ruling had affirmed that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live in peace, comfort, and quiet. It declared that no individual has a right to generate noise pollution that crosses the boundaries of their premises and affects others. The court lamented that despite such clear directives, the 2005 orders remain unimplemented.
Expressing deep concern, the Nagpur Bench described the state government’s recent July 21, 2025 order on noise control as ineffective, warning that in absence of a robust mechanism for enforcement, it amounts to little more than an “eye-wash.” The bench stressed that wherever sound systems are deployed — whether for religious events, club functions, ceremonies, or celebrations — it must be ensured that the permissible decibel limits are strictly observed and that activities cease by 10:00 PM. Reports, however, indicate that many venues continue to flout these norms, playing music and even bursting firecrackers well past midnight. The court named several prominent venues, including clubs, marriage halls and event lawns, as habitual violators who contribute significantly to the noise burden in the city. It also noted that in certain areas such as Civil Lines, the noise problem is accentuated by vehicular violations — with vehicles using mufflers or emitting excessively loud sounds.
The court underlined the grave health consequences of sustained exposure to high-decibel noise. It warned that exposure to sound levels between 80–110 decibels can cause hearing damage, while noise beyond 120 dB can cross the threshold of pain, and levels between 140–160 dB can rupture eardrums. Moreover, such noise can trigger physiological stress responses: chronic exposure may lead to elevated cortisol levels, cardiovascular problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, hypertension, mental stress and other serious health concerns. The Nagpur Bench highlighted that the harm is not limited to those directly involved in the events, but affects entire neighbourhoods, including infants, children, elderly, sick persons, students and other vulnerable individuals.
Crucially, the court observed that the existing enforcement mechanism — which largely depends on police taking action only after receiving specific complaints — is inadequate. It pointed out that even areas housing the Commissioner of Police and other senior officials have been flagged for repeated violations. To remedy this systemic failure, the court directed its Registry to register a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — converting the suo motu cognizance into a formal legal inquiry. This PIL will subject to scrutiny the failures in implementation of noise control law in Nagpur and seek effective mechanisms for enforcement. The bench urged the state government to issue fresh orders, with clear consequences for failure to maintain noise levels within permissible limits.
The order thus combines the rejection of the mosque’s plea for loudspeaker use with a larger, city-wide judicial intervention. The High Court has placed on record a comprehensive demand for action — not merely better compliance by individual venues, but systemic enforcement through legislation, oversight and accountability. The suo motu PIL seeks to provide a framework for ensuring that the rights of residents to peace and quiet are not sacrificed under the guise of religious or celebratory events.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.