Nagpur High Court Mandates Swift Action on Unauthorized Loudspeakers
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court issued a decisive order on Thursday, directing authorities to remove all loudspeakers installed without proper permission at religious places in Nagpur within a strict seven-day timeframe. This initiative marks the beginning of a closely monitored enforcement drive aimed at significantly curbing noise pollution across the city.
Court Criticizes Lack of Implementation and Sets Limited Pilot
Taking stern note of repeated violations, a division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta observed a "complete lack of implementation, be it a provision of law or directives issued by the courts." The directives were issued during hearings of a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs No. 8 and 90 of 2025, along with suo motu PIL 16/2025).
The bench clarified its strategic approach, stating, "We intend to issue directives for a limited area, and also, for a limited purpose, and to monitor its implementation. Thereafter, depending on success, we will expand the scope of the order." This indicates a phased rollout, starting with Nagpur as a test case before potentially broader application.
Specific Directives on Loudspeaker Use and Installation
Referencing the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, the court firmly reiterated that loudspeakers or public address systems cannot be operated without written permission from designated authorities, including the district magistrate and police commissioner. The court has ordered the collector and police commissioner to publish a public notice in widely circulated newspapers, instructing all religious institutions to remove any unauthorized loudspeakers within seven days of the notice's publication.
In cases of non-compliance, authorities are empowered to remove the equipment themselves. For loudspeakers that have been installed with prior permission, the bench imposed specific conditions:
- The height of the loudspeaker must not exceed 15 feet from the ground.
- If this height limit is exceeded, the authority must issue a detailed, reasoned order explaining the necessity for the exception.
- Loudspeakers must be oriented towards the religious structure itself, rather than projecting sound outwards into the surrounding areas.
Any deviation from these rules requires a separate, reasoned order from the competent authority. The court emphasized that this structured arrangement "will achieve a balance between the right to speech and the right to listen or decline to listen." It further elaborated that the freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution inherently includes the "freedom not to listen and/or to remain silent."
Broader Crackdown on Noise and Air Pollution Sources
The court's order extended beyond loudspeakers to address other significant sources of noise and air pollution. It directed the Chief Controller of Explosives to ensure that the maximum sound output of firecrackers does not exceed 75 dB(A) or the limit prescribed under Indian standards, whichever is lower. Additionally, measures must be taken to prevent the manufacture of firecrackers that are harmful to air quality.
Authorities, including the district magistrate, police commissioner, and municipal commissioner, were instructed to verify whether event lawns and marriage halls in Nagpur possess all required permissions. They must also ensure that DJs, sound systems, and firecrackers are not used during ceremonies without prior approval from the competent authority.
The bench noted that issues related to noise pollution from vehicles and construction activities will be examined in subsequent hearings, indicating a comprehensive, ongoing review process.
Compliance and Future Proceedings
Parties involved in the case were asked to submit practical suggestions regarding the implementation of existing rules and court directives. The judges directed all relevant authorities to submit a detailed compliance report before the next hearing, which is scheduled for March 12.
Legal representation during the proceedings included Advocate BK Wasnik appearing in one of the petitions. Advocate Ashutosh Dharmadhikari represented petitioner Awantika Chitnavis in another case. Mugdha Chandurkar, instructed by Deputy Solicitor General Kartik Shukul, appeared for the Union government. Abdul Subhan served as amicus curiae, while NS Rao represented the state government.
