The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging that police authorities in West Bengal were orally directing mosque committees to remove loudspeakers, holding that the allegations made in the petition were vague and unsupported by specific material.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee heard the petition.

The PIL alleged that police authorities had held meetings with representatives of mosques and orally directed them to remove loudspeakers. The petitioner claimed that such directions were being issued despite the existence of Supreme Court guidelines permitting the use of loudspeakers subject to prescribed decibel limits.

At the outset, the State informed the Court that, on instructions, “nothing was done” by the police authorities as alleged in the petition.

The Court asked whether even the alleged meetings with mosque representatives had taken place.

“Even meeting was not held?” the Court asked. The Advocate General answered in the negative and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the PIL.

The State argued that the petitioner, a practising advocate, had based the proceedings on alleged verbal instructions issued by an unidentified authority.

“This plea is on the basis of a verbal instruction issued by the authority. They have not mentioned which authority issued these directions,” the Advocate General submitted.

He further contended that there was no document demonstrating that any authority had acted in violation of the statutory framework.

“No document is there to show that anyone has complied with the statute. The allegations are vague,” the AG argued.

The State also pointed out that the petitioner had referred to information allegedly received from Imams and mosque representatives, but none of the persons allegedly affected had come forward before the Court.

The Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was substantially relying on newspaper reports to allege that police personnel were asking mosques to remove loudspeakers.

Court Questions State On Existing Loudspeaker Guidelines

During the hearing, the Bench referred to an earlier order containing guidelines governing the use of loudspeakers and sought the State's response to the petitioner's contention that police authorities could intervene only upon an actual violation of the prescribed decibel limits.

The Court observed that the issue was whether the police could take steps merely on the basis of the allegations raised in the petition when the existing guidelines contemplated action in the event of excessive noise.

The Advocate General maintained that the alleged police meetings themselves had not been pleaded with sufficient particulars.

He submitted that the allegation that police personnel had met representatives of mosques and directed removal of loudspeakers was merely a “bald allegation”.

The AG thereafter relied on judicial precedents concerning pleadings in PIL proceedings to contend that the petition was not maintainable.

'PIL Is Not Adversarial Litigation'

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, opposed the State's preliminary objection.

“Let's understand a PIL. Is it like civil or criminal trial? That 100% evidence needs to be given?” he asked.

Bandopadhyay submitted that PIL jurisprudence had evolved through the Supreme Court's judgments and that the requirements of pleadings in ordinary civil litigation could not be applied identically to public interest proceedings.

“PIL is not adversarial litigation. The grievance or cause of action is more important. It's the duty of the Court to look into the grievance,” he submitted.

He argued that the petitioner was not required to establish the entire case in the manner of a civil trial at the threshold.

“Question is whether there is a skeleton of facts. Not all facts like a civil suit,” he submitted.

Bandopadhyay also objected to the State repeatedly asking why the Imams or members of mosque committees had not themselves approached the Court.

“Repeatedly they are asking why Imams have not come. If they come then it doesn't remain a PIL anymore,” he argued.

He submitted that the grievance concerned alleged police action and that the Court should examine the substance of the grievance rather than insist upon technical particulars ordinarily required in adversarial litigation.

Bandopadhyay maintained that the State's assertion that no meetings had taken place between police authorities and mosque committees was incorrect.

At one stage, the Bench observed that the grievance raised in a PIL could not be rejected merely on technical considerations.

“Yes, grievance has to be seen, technicalities cannot be gone into,” the Court observed.

Bandopadhyay responded that the petitioner was seeking enforcement of the existing Supreme Court guidelines and that authorities could not interfere with the use of loudspeakers when they were operated within the permissible limits.

“As long as I follow SC directions, no one can interfere,” he submitted.

Case No: WPA(P)/401/2026

Case: MD DANISH FAROOQUI VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.