In a latest verdict that is bound to assume immense significance, the Allahabad High Court has denied permission sought by two Mosques to install loudspeakers. The Division Bench consisting of Justices Pankaj Mutual and Vipin Chandra Dixit stated, “No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums and if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of the others including that of not being disturbed.”
The petitioners had prayed that use of loudspeakers is an essential part of their religious practice and becomes necessary with increasing population to give call to people through amplifiers and loudspeakers to come and pray. It must be noted that no loudspeaker/ public address system/ sound producing instrument/ equipment or amplifier can be put to use without the permission of concerned authority under Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
In 2018, the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench had ordered the state of Uttar Pradesh and the State Pollution Control Board to remove all loudspeakers that were installed without permission at religious places. The Lucknow bench had issued the order on the matter citing the provisions of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000.
Armed with the Allahabad High Court order, the Yogi government had sprung into action and had immediately banned such unauthorised use of loudspeakers at religious and public places in the state. It is in this context that the two Mosques petitioned the High Court this time around.
The core of their contention was that it is an essential religious practice to use amplifiers and loudspeakers, and therefore any restriction infringes their Fundamental Right to freely profess, practise and propagate their religion. Their argument however has been categorically rejected by the Allahabad High Court.
The Division Bench held, “It is true that one can practice, profess and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India but the said right is not an absolute right. The right under Article 25 is a subject to the wider Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and thus both of them have to be read together and construed harmoniously.”
Notably, the High Court also observed that the area in which the petitioner Mosques were located possessed mixed population of Hindus and Muslims, and on previous occasions disputes had broken out over the use of loudspeakers. The Allahabad High Court opined that if any group was permitted to use amplifiers, tensions could again break out between the two groups. Thus, the administrative authorities have been held justified by the Allahabad High Court in refusing the permission to use amplifiers.
In its verdict, the Court also highlighted the issue of noise pollution and also observed, “”…people in India do not realise that noise in itself is a sort of pollution. They are not even fully conscious about its ill effect on health though some concern is being shown to it in recent past.”
The Allahabad High Court has therefore set a very good precedent by rejecting the frivolous petition. It is important to mention here that the loudspeakers were invented only in the late nineteenth century. In such circumstances, it is indeed incomprehensible how the petitioners could claim that use of loudspeakers and similar public address systems is an essential religious practice, when the religion in question predates the technological innovation itself.
In fact, the Sonu Nigam episode vivdly describes how a massive issue has been made out of the trivial issue. Nigam had to face a barrage of abuses from religious fanatics merely for exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression, and giving his opinion about “forced religiousness” through the use of loudspeakers.
Such petitions are at best, ill-conceived ideas based on a poor understanding of law and historical facts, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Courts at worst. However, with the Allahabad High Court setting the record straight in its latest verdict, one can hope that the controversy has been set at rest.