Calcutta HC Dismisses PIL Alleging Coercive Removal Of Loudspeakers From 4,000 Mosques

The Calcutta High Court on August 18 dismissed a public interest litigation alleging that police authorities in West Bengal had verbally directed places of worship to remove loudspeakers, resulting in their removal from more than 4,000 mosques.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee held that the allegations made in the PIL were not supported by particulars or contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The Court observed that “suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof.”

The PIL, filed by Md. Danish Farooqui sought directions from the State authorities to cancel the alleged verbal directions issued to the managements of places of worship for the removal of loudspeakers.

It also sought permission for places of worship to use loudspeakers in accordance with the existing statutory rules, guidelines and circulars, including the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the guidelines framed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

The petitioner further sought an order restraining the authorities from verbally directing or coercing places of worship to remove loudspeakers without conclusive proof of violation of prescribed noise levels and without following due process of law.

PIL alleged removal of loudspeakers from over 4,000 mosques

The petitioner submitted that meetings were convened by various police stations in Hooghly district on August 3, 2026, during which representatives of mosques and temples were allegedly verbally directed to remove loudspeakers from their respective places of worship.

It was claimed that, owing to such directions and the threat of coercive action, loudspeakers had been removed from more than 4,000 mosques across West Bengal.

The petitioner also referred to representations submitted by Imams, Secretaries and Presidents of places of worship before the District Magistrate, Hooghly and the Commissioner of Police, as well as representations made to senior State police and Home Department officials.

The petitioner argued that oral instructions, without written statutory orders, notifications or legal sanction, violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights.

It was further contended that the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 do not impose an absolute prohibition on loudspeakers but regulate their use through prescribed decibel limits and time restrictions.

According to the petitioner, religious institutions complying with these limits could not be subjected to the arbitrary removal of their equipment through unwritten verbal directions.

State disputes allegations

The State disputed the allegations and argued that the petition was based on statements purportedly received from representatives of places of worship, without supporting documents.

The Advocate General submitted that the petition did not disclose particulars of the alleged 4,000 mosques from which loudspeakers were supposedly removed. It was also pointed out that there was no allegation that police personnel had entered any place of worship, engaged anyone to remove loudspeakers or seized any equipment.

The State therefore argued that no specific overt act had been attributed to any State authority and that the PIL was not maintainable.

No contemporaneous documents produced

The High Court, after considering the submissions, noted that the writ petition was based on alleged verbal directions issued by the authorities.

The Bench observed that although the petitioner had stated that representatives of various places of worship were directed to remove loudspeakers during meetings held on August 3, no document had been annexed to establish these allegations.

The Court also noted that no particulars had been furnished regarding the 4,000 mosques allegedly affected, while no specific overt act had been attributed to the police authorities. Further, no contemporaneous documents had been produced in support of the allegations.

The Court also referred to the newspaper report relied upon by the petitioner, noting that it stated the West Bengal Police had urged mosques in various parts of the State to limit and remove high-decibel loudspeakers and replace them with sound boxes.

However, the Bench found that the report contained nothing to establish that the police authorities had acted in an arbitrary or whimsical manner. It was further noted that there was no allegation that police personnel had entered places of worship or engaged anyone to remove loudspeakers, nor was there any case of seizure of equipment.

" The adjudicatory field of the writ Court is solely on the basis of affidavit evidence," the Court observed.

It held that when a point is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising it must plead those facts by evidence, and such evidence 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, " the Bench held. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Case Title: Md. Danish Farooqui v The State Of West Bengal & Others