Source: Indian Express  

Introduction 

The Bombay High Court delivered a significant judgment in January 2025 regarding the use of loudspeakers at religious places, particularly addressing a petition filed by residents' associations from Mumbai's Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), and Chunabhatti areas. The ruling provides that using loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice and established comprehensive guidelines for addressing noise pollution from religious establishments. The case observed the delicate balance between religious practices and public health concerns in urban areas, particularly in a cosmopolitan city like Mumbai. 

What was the Background and Court Observations of Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Commissioner of Police,(2025)? 

• The case originated from petitions filed by residents' associations from Mumbai's Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), and Chunabhatti areas specifically targeting noise pollution from mosques and madrasas. 
• Police affidavits submitted in November 2023 documented excessive noise levels at two Kurla mosques, measuring 79.4 and 98.7 decibels, significantly exceeding the legal limits of 55 decibels during day and 45 decibels at night. 
• The court recognized Mumbai's status as a cosmopolitan city where people from different religions coexist, making noise regulation particularly important. 
• The Bombay High Court identified noise as a "major health hazard" affecting various aspects of public health and well-being. 
• The bench observed that citizens typically don't file complaints until the situation becomes "intolerable and a nuisance," suggesting the severity of the issue when complaints are made. 
• The court noted that measuring individual loudspeaker noise levels wasn't sufficient; instead, the cumulative sound level of all loudspeakers in use at a given time should be considered. 
• The judges observed "deliberate violation" of previous court orders regarding noise pollution, indicating a pattern of non-compliance. 
• The court criticized law enforcement authorities for being "meek or silent spectators" to these violations instead of taking action. 
• The bench noted that the current fine of Rs 5,000 per day (potentially reaching Rs 18,25,000 annually) might not be sufficient deterrent for violators. 
• The court observed that religious institutions were treating noise violations "as a matter of right" while complainants remained "hapless and helpless victims." 
• The judges stated that even in a democratic state, no person or group can claim they won't follow the law of the land. 
• The court noted that post-COVID-19 lockdown, some religious institutions were granted permission to use loudspeakers conditionally but continued to violate decibel limits. 

What was the Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. Maharashtra (2016) (Previous Cases) Background and Court Observations? 

• The 2016 case (Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. Maharashtra) set a crucial precedent by directing strict implementation of the Noise Pollution (Regulations and Control) Rules and establishing foundational principles for noise regulation. 
• The 2016 ruling explicitly stated that "the use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion," setting a clear legal precedent for future cases. 
• The court established that places of worship, regardless of religion, could not claim exemption from being penalized for noise pollution violations. 
• The ruling clarified that using loudspeakers cannot be claimed as a fundamental right under either Article 25 (freedom of religion) or Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). 
• The court set specific time restrictions, prohibiting the use of loudspeakers between 10 PM and 6 AM, with limited exceptions for special occasions. 
• The 2016 judgment allowed state governments to permit loudspeaker use between 10 PM and midnight during cultural or religious occasions for a maximum of 15 days per calendar year. 
• The ruling established clear definitions of silence zones, marking areas within 100 meters of schools, colleges, hospitals, religious places, and courts as noise-sensitive areas. 
• Exceptions were granted for closed premises like auditoriums, conference rooms, community halls, and banquet halls during night hours for specific communications. 
• The court made special provisions for public emergencies, allowing exceptions to the general rules in cases of genuine public emergency situations. 
• The ruling prohibited the use of horns in silence zones at all times and in residential areas during night hours. 
• This case became a reference point for the 2025 judgment, with the newer ruling building upon and reinforcing these established principles while adding more specific implementation guidelines. 
• The 2016 case observed the need for balance between religious practices and public welfare, establishing that reasonable restrictions on noise levels do not violate religious rights. 

What are the Legal Provisions and Constitutional Aspects? 

• Constitutional Framework 
  • Article 25 (Freedom of Religion):  
    • Court clarified that loudspeaker use is not protected under religious freedom 
    • Distinguished between essential and non-essential religious practices 
    • Established that noise regulation doesn't impinge on religious rights 
  • Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression):  
    • Ruled that loudspeaker use is not a fundamental right 
    • Balanced free speech rights against public interest 
    • Established that noise regulations don't violate expression rights 
• Statutory Provisions 
  • Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000:  
    • Set maximum noise levels: 55 decibels (day) and 45 decibels (night) in residential areas 
    • Established framework for measuring and monitoring noise levels 
    • Provided basis for enforcement actions 
  • Maharashtra Police Act,1960:  
    • Section 38: Empowers police to stop music, sound, or noise 
    • Section 70: Allows seizure of loudspeakers and amplifiers 
    • Section 136: Provides for imposition of fines 

What were the High Court Directions? 

• The court established a graded penalty system starting with a caution for first-time offenders, followed by fines for subsequent violations, and ultimately allowing for seizure of equipment and license cancellation for continued non-compliance. 
• The bench directed that police must handle noise pollution complaints without identifying the complainant to protect them from potential harassment or "ill will and developing hatred." 
• The High Court mandated that the state government develop an inbuilt mechanism to control decibel levels in loudspeakers and other sound-emitting devices used at any religious place, specifically through "calibration or auto-fixation" of decibel limits. 
• The Mumbai Police Commissioner was specifically directed to ensure that police officers use decibel level measuring mobile applications to check for violations accurately. 
• For measuring violations, the court specified that police must consider the cumulative sound level of all loudspeakers in use at a particular time, rather than measuring individual devices separately. 
• The bench ordered the creation of a comprehensive tracking system for unauthorized loudspeakers, requesting information about action taken against 2,940 loudspeakers being used without permission. 
• The court directed religious institutions to obtain proper permissions before using any sound amplification devices and to strictly adhere to the permitted decibel limits of 55 decibels during day and 45 decibels at night. 
• Religious trusts and organizations were made directly accountable, with the court directing that fines should be recovered from trustees and managers in cases of violations. 
• The High Court mandated regular monitoring and reporting of compliance, setting up a system for periodic review of implementation through future court hearings, with the next hearing scheduled for March 18. 

Conclusion 

The Bombay High Court's ruling represents a significant step in addressing noise pollution from religious establishments while respecting constitutional rights. By establishing clear guidelines, enforcement protocols, and a graded penalty system, the court has created a framework that balances religious practices with public health concerns. The judgment's emphasis on technological solutions and systematic enforcement mechanisms demonstrates a practical approach to a sensitive issue. This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases across India and provides a model for managing noise pollution in urban religious.