In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has firmly stated that the use of loudspeakers is not a fundamental part of practising any religion. The court emphasized that amplified sound cannot be allowed to violate the rights of citizens who are unwilling listeners.
Court Dismisses Gondia Mosque's Plea
The bench delivered this verdict on Monday while dismissing a petition filed by Masjid Gousiya, located in Maharashtra's Gondia district. The mosque had sought a court directive to restore its use of loudspeakers for offering prayers. However, the division bench found the plea lacking in legal merit.
The petitioner failed to produce any religious scripture or legal document that establishes a right to use loudspeakers for performing prayers, the court noted. This failure was a central reason for the dismissal of the application.
Supreme Court Precedent and the Right to Silence
The High Court bench extensively referred to a past ruling by the Supreme Court of India. It reiterated the top court's observation that no religion prescribes that prayers must be conducted by disturbing the peace of others through voice amplifiers or drum beating.
The bench elaborated on a crucial constitutional balance. "While there is a right to speech, there exists a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen, and nobody can claim he has a right to make his voice trespass the minds of others," the judges observed, quoting the Supreme Court's wisdom.
Legal Framework and Health Concerns Cited
Beyond constitutional rights, the judgment also grounded its reasoning in specific environmental laws and public health. The court detailed the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules of 2000, which were framed under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986.
In its order, the bench explicitly cited the documented health risks associated with noise pollution. This legal and health framework provided a solid foundation for rejecting the plea, reinforcing that the restriction is a matter of public welfare, not religious infringement.
The hearing, which took place on October 16, had given the petitioner an opportunity to demonstrate whether installing loudspeakers was mandatory in their religious practice. Since no supporting material was furnished, the court concluded the petitioner was "not entitled to seek relief." This ruling underscores the judiciary's focus on harmonizing religious freedoms with the fundamental rights to health and tranquility of the broader public.
