The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a Public Interest Litigation alleging that police authorities in West Bengal were orally directing mosque committees to remove loudspeakers, despite there being no demonstrated violation of the permissible decibel limits.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee who had earlier directed the Advocate General to obtain instructions regarding the allegations.

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra submitted that his instructions were that “nothing was done” by the police authorities.

The Court asked whether even the alleged meeting with mosque representatives had not taken place. “Even meeting was not held?” the Court asked.

The Advocate General replied in the negative and thereafter raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the PIL.

He argued that the petitioner, a practising advocate, had based the petition on alleged verbal instructions issued by unidentified authorities.

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

He further argued that there was no document demonstrating that any statutory requirement had been violated and that the allegations in the petition were vague.

The State also questioned the reliance on alleged information received from Imams and mosque representatives, pointing out that none of them had come forward before the Court.

The AG submitted that the petition relied substantially on newspaper reports alleging that police personnel were asking mosques to remove loudspeakers.

He also argued that the petitioner had not specifically pleaded that any police officer had threatened mosque authorities or issued any formal order.

The Court, however, sought clarification regarding an earlier judgment containing guidelines regulating the use of loudspeakers.

The Bench observed that under the existing guidelines, police authorities could take action in case the prescribed decibel level was exceeded, and sought the State's response to the petitioner's contention that the police were acting beyond those parameters.

The AG maintained that the alleged meetings between police officers and mosque committees themselves had not been properly pleaded and that the allegations were “a mere bald allegation.”

He thereafter referred to several judgments concerning the requirements of pleadings in PIL proceedings and argued that the present petition did not satisfy those requirements.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, opposed the maintainability 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 the concept of PIL had evolved through the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, particularly through judgments associated with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, and that the initial PILs did not contain the level of factual detail expected in ordinary civil 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 technical rules applicable to ordinary civil litigation could not be mechanically applied to PIL proceedings.

The senior counsel said the grievance in the present case was that police personnel had allegedly approached mosque committees and held meetings regarding the use of loudspeakers.

“Even in police overaction this Court doesn't question who the police officer is. Grievance is that the police came and the meeting was held,” he submitted.

Responding to the State's repeated contention that no Imam or mosque representative had approached the Court, Bandopadhyay said such an approach would defeat the very character of a PIL.

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

He argued that the issue before the Court was whether there was a sufficient “skeleton of facts” warranting judicial consideration, and not whether the petition contained every fact that would ordinarily be required in a civil suit.

Bandopadhyay further submitted that the petitioner was not claiming an unrestricted right to use loudspeakers.

“I am entitled to use loudspeakers within the permissible limits,” he said.

He argued that there was no qualified personnel or demonstrated procedure through which the authorities had measured the sound emanating from the loudspeakers and established a concrete violation of the applicable rules.

“The authority has also not ascertained any concrete infraction of the rules,” he submitted.

The senior counsel alleged that a new practice had developed in the State whereby there was no written public notice or formal order, but only verbal instructions followed by police action.

“There is unique procedure in this State now. No public notice, only verbal instructions and then police will go and do it. New practice has been developed,” he argued.

He also referred to a Supreme Court judgment concerning sound amplification devices and submitted that manufacturers had been directed to ensure that such equipment operated within prescribed decibel limits.

“Has that been implemented in WB?” he asked.

Bandopadhyay further disputed the State's assertion that no meetings had taken place between police authorities and mosque committees, submitting that such meetings had in fact occurred.

At one stage, the Court observed that the grievance raised by the petitioner had to be examined and that technicalities could not be allowed to overshadow the substance of a PIL.

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

Bandopadhyay thereafter submitted that as long as the use of loudspeakers remained within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, the authorities could not interfere without establishing a violation.

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

He sought permission to place a supplementary affidavit containing further details before the Court.

The Bench, however, indicated that it was proceeding to decide the matter.

“We have heard you,” the Court said.

When Bandopadhyay stated that the supplementary affidavit contained answers to the queries raised during the hearing, the Court reiterated that it was deciding the matter.

Case No: WPA(P)/401/2026

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