This directive arose from a petition filed by residents of Nehru Nagar and Chunabhatti, who reported disturbances due to amplified religious activities in their neighborhoods. The court underscored the necessity for authorities to act swiftly on such grievances, highlighting that the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, prohibit loudspeakers from exceeding prescribed noise levels of 55 decibels during daytime and 45 decibels at night. The court observed that individual violations often lead to cumulative noise pollution, exacerbating the issue. ([Hindustan Times](https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/bombay-hc-directs-police-to-act-against-noise-pollution-violations-by-religious-structures-101737696906308.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
In its judgment, the court outlined specific steps for the police to follow upon receiving a noise pollution complaint against a religious structure:
1. Issue a warning: At the first instance, the alleged offender must be cautioned.
The court emphasized that the identity of the complainant must remain confidential. It also noted that the fines prescribed by the rules—₹5,000 per day or ₹18,25,000 for an entire year—may not act as a sufficient deterrent against repeated violations. The judges remarked that citizens often raise complaints only after the noise pollution becomes intolerable and a public nuisance. ([Hindustan Times](https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/bombay-hc-directs-police-to-act-against-noise-pollution-violations-by-religious-structures-101737696906308.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
The court's decision aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings, which have consistently held that while the freedom to practice religion is a fundamental right, it does not extend to practices that disrupt public tranquility. The Bombay High Court reiterated that the use of loudspeakers is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion, as it is not an essential religious practice. ([The Indian Express](https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-high-court-loudspeakers-not-essential-part-of-religion-police-action-9795863/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
This ruling has significant implications for the regulation of noise pollution in urban areas, particularly in Mumbai, a cosmopolitan city where residents of various religions live in close proximity. The court noted that granting permissions for loudspeakers in such densely populated areas is not in the public interest and that denying such permissions does not infringe upon constitutional rights. ([The Law Advice](https://www.thelawadvice.com/news/loudspeakers-not-essential-to-any-religion-bombay-hc-rules-calls-for-strict-noise-pollution-control?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
Noise pollution has been a longstanding concern in Mumbai, with various sources contributing to elevated noise levels, including traffic, construction, and religious activities. Activists have long advocated for stricter enforcement of noise regulations. Sumaira Abdulali, founder of the Awaaz Foundation, has been at the forefront of this movement, emphasizing the health hazards associated with excessive noise and the importance of impartial application of noise rules across all sources. ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumaira_Abdulali?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
The court's directive mandates that law enforcement agencies take immediate and stringent action against violations of noise pollution norms by religious structures. This includes issuing warnings to offenders, maintaining the confidentiality of complainants, and imposing fines as stipulated under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The court also highlighted that the prescribed fines may not be sufficient deterrents against repeated violations, suggesting a need for reviewing the penalty framework to ensure compliance. ([Hindustan Times](https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/bombay-hc-directs-police-to-act-against-noise-pollution-violations-by-religious-structures-101737696906308.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
The ruling has been met with mixed reactions from various quarters. While environmental activists and residents troubled by noise pollution have welcomed the decision, some religious groups have expressed concerns over potential restrictions on their traditional practices. Legal experts note that the judgment reinforces the principle that individual rights, including the right to practice religion, must be balanced against the collective right to a peaceful and healthy environment.