Calcutta HC Dismisses PIL Over Alleged Removal of Loudspeakers From 4,000 Mosques [Read Order]

Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction upon the West Bengal government to cancel alleged verbal directions issued to places of worship for removal of loudspeakers, and to permit their use in compliance with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, holding that the writ petition was unsubstantiated by any documentary or affidavit evidence.

The petitioner, Md. Danish Farooqui, had approached the Court alleging that on 3rd August, 2026, meetings were convened by various police stations in the district of Hooghly, during which representatives of mosques and temples were verbally directed to remove loudspeakers from their respective places of worship. It was contended that, owing to such verbal directions and the threat of coercive action, loudspeakers had been removed from more than 4,000 mosques across the State. Representations had reportedly been submitted before the District Magistrate, Hooghly, the Commissioner of Police, the Principal Secretary, Home and Hill Affairs Department, and the Director General of Police, seeking intervention, but no response was received.

Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Senior Advocate, submitted that the oral instructions issued without any written statutory order, notification or legal sanction violated the principles of natural justice as well as constitutional guarantees. He argued that the law does not impose an absolute ban on loudspeakers, and that the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 establish a regulatory mechanism based on decibel limits and time slots rather than a blanket prohibition. 

Religious institutions operating in bona fide compliance with statutory limits, he contended, could not be subjected to arbitrary equipment removal on the strength of an unwritten verbal dictate, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Advocate General appearing for the State, disputed the contentions and submitted that the pleadings were bereft of any supporting documents. Neither the particulars of the 4,000 mosques referred to in the writ petition nor any material substantiating the alleged threats had been disclosed. It was pointed out that there was no averment, even in the representations annexed to the petition, that any police personnel had entered a place of worship or engaged any person for removal of loudspeakers, and no specific overt act had been attributed to any State authority. 

He further contended that the parameters for entertaining a PIL, including verification of the petitioner's credentials and prima facie satisfaction as to the correctness of the averments, were not satisfied, relying on State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, Bharat Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., West Bengal Board of Examination for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges & Ors vs. Dr. Jitendra Lal Banerjee & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Cal 52, All India Crimes Reforms Organization & Anr vs. The Union of India, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 236, and Rabin Kandar & Anr vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 10086.

In reply, Mr. Bandopadhyay submitted that the judgments relied upon by the State were distinguishable on facts, and that the averments in a writ petition, particularly in a PIL, had to be read together rather than in isolation, with mere technical infirmities in drafting not being used to non-suit a party. Reliance was placed on Brajesh Jha vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 899, and on Suvendu Adhikari & Anr vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2023) 1 High Court Cases (Cal) 484, where an identical contention had been considered and negated, holding that strict rules of pleading may not apply in a PIL, distinguishing Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee, on a consideration of the materials on record, observed that no document had been annexed to establish the facts averred in the writ petition, and that no particulars had been furnished regarding the 4,000 mosques from which loudspeakers were alleged to have been removed under threat of coercive action. The Bench noted that no specific overt act had been attributed to the police authorities, and no contemporaneous documents had been produced in support of the averments. It further observed that it had not been alleged that any police personnel had entered a place of worship or engaged any person to remove loudspeakers, nor was it the case that any equipment had been seized by the authorities.

The Bench also referred to the news report relied upon by the petitioner, published in the Indian Express, which stated that the West Bengal Police had "urged mosques in various parts of the state to limit and remove the high decibel loudspeakers at the top and replace them with sound boxes," and held that there was nothing in the said report to suggest that the police authorities had acted in an arbitrary or whimsical manner.

The Court held "Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof... The adjudicatory field of the writ Court is solely on the basis of 'affidavit evidence'. When a point is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point must plead such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition, the Court cannot grant relief."

Holding that the writ petition was unsubstantiated, the Division Bench dismissed the PIL, with no order as to costs.

Appearances: Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ms. Aparupa Poddar, Mr. Arka Kr. Nag, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Ms. Sneha Sarkar, Mr. Syed Nafirul Islam, Mr. Md. Babul Hossain, Mr. Ejaz Akhtar, Mr. Anit Das, Mr. Samirul Sarder and Mr. Md. Ahsanuz Zaman, appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Advocate General, along with Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate, Mr. Srijib Chakraborty and Mr. Sunny Nandy, appeared for the State/Respondents.

Case Title: Md. Danish Farooqui vs. The State of West Bengal & Others [WPA (P) 401 of 2026]

[Read Order]