Inconsistent enforcement of noise pollution laws? Bombay High Court's recent ruling: ban on early morning ‘azaan’; several other processions that cause noise pollution not under the scanner here

31, Jan 2025 | CJP Team

The recent Bombay High Court judgment (23rd January 2025) addresses the contentious issue of the use of loudspeakers at places of worship and their legal standing under Article 25 of the Constitution. The case was initiated following complaints by residents about persistent noise pollution caused by loudspeakers from religious institutions (masjids), particularly during early morning and late-night hours. The court examined whether such practices constituted an essential religious function or merely a cultural practice subject to regulation under existing noise pollution laws. The court ruled that loudspeakers are not an essential part of religious practice and directed the Maharashtra government and police to take strict action against violations of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. This ruling aligns with past judicial pronouncements while also raising questions about unequal enforcement of noise regulations across different religious communities.

Key takeaways from the 23/1 Bombay HC judgment

The case, Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., was filed by residents of Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai, who alleged that local authorities failed to take action against religious institutions using loudspeakers beyond prohibited hours. The petitioners contended that the persistent use of loudspeakers at odd hours disrupted their right to a peaceful environment and violated established noise pollution laws.

Issues involved in the case

• Whether the use of loudspeakers in religious practices constitutes an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Whether the failure of authorities to act against noise violations amounts to dereliction of duty.

Core observations by the Court:

1. Loudspeakers are not an essential part of any religion:

• The court emphasized that the use of loudspeakers does not enjoy protection under Article 25 (freedom of religion) since it is not an integral part of religious practice

“Noise is a major health hazard on various aspects. No one can claim that his rights are affected in any manner if he is denied a permission to  use loudspeaker. It is in public interest that such permissions should not be granted. By denying such permissions, rights under Article 19 or 25 of the Constitution of India are not at all infringed. Use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion” Paragraph 18 of the judgment

• The court noted that while religious freedom is protected under the Constitution, it does not extend to acts that disturb public peace or infringe upon others’ rights to a noise-free environment.

“It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) In India (supra) that, 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.” Paragraph 22 of the judgment

2. Failure of authorities to enforce noise pollution laws:

• • The court criticized thepolice and municipal authorities for failing to take strict action against noise pollution violations, despite existing laws prohibiting the use of loudspeakers beyond permissible hours.
  • It directed law enforcement agencies toproactively monitor and act against violators instead of waiting for public complaints.

“According to us, it is the bounden duty of the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 that, they must and should enforce the law by adopting all the necessary measures, as may be prescribed by the provisions of law. In a democratic State, there cannot be a situation that, a person / group of persons/ association of persons would say that, it will not follow or adhere to the law of the land and the law enforcers would be meek or silent spectators to it” Paragraph 21 of the judgment

3. Strict application of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000:

• • The court reaffirmed thatdecibel limits and restricted hours (10 PM – 6 AM) must be enforced uniformly across all religious institutions and public spaces.
  • It also instructed authorities to installnoise monitoring equipment and initiate automatic regulatory measures.

“The Respondent No.1 also to direct all the concerned Police Officers to use the decibel level measuring mobile application for checking the decibel levels. These applications are easily available on internet and would assist in monitoring the noise levels. Thus, loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipment or gazettes which produce offending noise, one detected as violating the law or in defiance of the directions issued by the concerned Police Authorities can seize the said equipment/s under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Police Act” Paragraph 26.1 of the judgment

4. Public order and health concerns:

• • The judgment highlighted theadverse health effects of prolonged exposure to high-decibel noise, particularly on children, elderly individuals, and those with medical conditions.
  • It cited theright to life under Article 21 as including the right to live in an environment free from excessive noise pollution.

“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” Paragraph 22 of the judgment

5. Precedents and consistent enforcement:

• The judgment aligned with previous rulings, including the 2016 Bombay High Court decision and the 2005 Supreme Court case
• The court reaffirmed that prior Supreme Court and High Court directives on noise pollution must be enforced rigorously and not left to selective interpretation by local authorities.

Contradictions & broader context

• The Bombay HC’s decision predominantly addressed complaints regarding Azaan (Islamic call to prayer), while similar noise levels from Hindu bhajans, kirtans, and temple bells have not received equal scrutiny. This raises concerns about selective enforcement and religious bias in the application of noise regulations.
• Religious processions and festivals (Ganeshotsav, Navratri, etc.) often receive extended time limits until 11 p.m., whereas calls for prayer and other religious activities of certain communities face stringent restrictions. The inconsistency in granting permissions highlights potential discrimination in law enforcement
• The Allahabad High Court, in its 2014 ruling, reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s stance that noise pollution regulations must apply uniformly across all places of worship and religious institutions, irrespective of faith.

The judgement may be read here:

 

• The2005 Communalism Combat report noted that after the Supreme Court ruling, compliance with noise restrictions varied significantly across religious communities. While many mosques voluntarily stopped using loudspeakers beyond prescribed hours, Hindu religious processions and festivals such as Ganeshotsav and Navratri received special concessions allowing extended use of amplified sound
• In Maharashtra, reports indicate that Muslim clerics led voluntary compliance efforts, asking mosques to regulate their loudspeaker usage. Meanwhile, some Hindu religious organizations continued to push for exemptions, arguing that their practices required amplified sound beyond the prescribed limits

The report may be read here: SILENT PRAYER

The Bombay High Court’s 23/1 ruling reinforces constitutional principles that religious freedoms under Article 25 do not extend to public nuisance. However, it also exposes inconsistencies in how noise regulations are enforced across different religious practices.

The judgment on Cr WP no. 4729 of 2021 delivered by A.S. Gadkari and Shyam Chandak, JJ may be read here:

 

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)