The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the West Bengal Government to take instructions on a PIL alleging that police officers across the State have been pressuring mosques to remove loudspeakers used for Azaan, with the petitioner claiming that such action has affected nearly 4,000 mosques.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee while hearing the plea, questioned the absence of specific particulars in the petition and observed that an interim order restraining the State from removing loudspeakers could not be effectively implemented without identifying the alleged instances.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that police officers had been visiting mosques and insisting that loudspeakers be removed, despite there being no written order or circular issued by the State Government.

"They have removed loudspeaker used for Azaan from 4000 mosques. No written order will be served, but police implement it," Bandopadhyay submitted.

He contended that meetings had been convened with religious officials and police authorities, following which directions were allegedly issued to remove loudspeakers from mosques.

"There was a meeting with all different religious officials and police. The police issued a direction to them to remove all loudspeakers from mosques. They failed to produce any written order or circular from the State Government," he said.

Bandopadhyay further alleged that similar meetings and directions had taken place across West Bengal, suggesting a "pattern of action" by the police.

The Bench questioned the petitioner about the basis for the claim concerning 4,000 mosques. "Where do you find 4000 mosques?" the Court asked.

Bandopadhyay replied that the figure was based on a statement made by the Chief Minister in the Assembly.

The Bench also questioned the precise interim relief sought by the petitioner. "What interim order are you wanting?" the Court asked.

Bandopadhyay sought an order permitting the continued use of loudspeakers. When the Court asked whether such a prayer had first been made before the concerned authorities, he replied that it would be difficult to approach authorities individually in respect of 4,000 mosques.

"It's a PIL, My Lord. If your Lordship goes on technicalities, I have no case," he submitted.

The petitioner relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court permitting the use of loudspeakers subject to prescribed restrictions, which, according to Bandopadhyay, had also been upheld by the Supreme Court.

He argued that the existing legal framework regulates the use of loudspeakers through restrictions relating to decibel levels and permissible timings, and that the police could take action against individual violations instead of imposing a blanket prohibition.

"If anyone in violation of the orders uses, then police has authority to confiscate and prosecute. Loudspeakers during Azaan are allowed subject to that restriction," Bandopadhyay submitted.

He further argued that the alleged action of the police amounted to the authorities effectively deciding whether loudspeakers could be used without issuing any formal order capable of being challenged.

"If I have violated, then start a criminal case. Court will decide. Here police is judging the entire case and not allowing any use of loudspeakers," he said.

The Court, however, questioned whether the grievance concerned the performance of Azaan itself, pointing out that Azaan had not been stopped.

"Before 6am you couldn't use anyway. So I want to know that do you need to use loudspeaker to perform Azaan?" the Court asked.

Bandopadhyay responded that the grievance was specifically regarding the removal of loudspeakers and argued that the earlier High Court judgment had already dealt with the issue. "Why the religious discrimination?" he asked.

The Advocate General, appearing for the State, strongly disputed the manner in which the allegations had been presented and submitted that the petition contained no particulars identifying the alleged police officers, mosques or instances of removal.

"If police calls for a meeting then that is a representation. Who was the officer? They have not said," the AG submitted.

He argued that not a single specific instance had been identified in the pleadings. "Where have they said about the removal of loudspeakers by police? There is no whisper that police has removed anything," he submitted.

The Court asked whether the State was asserting that police officers had not visited mosques as alleged.

The AG replied that he would have to take instructions from the authorities.

The Court observed that the petitioner's allegations were that police had been threatening mosque authorities and insisting upon removal of loudspeakers.

"We want to examine as the HC has passed a slew of orders. Now they allege the police is threatening. How do you respond to that? Are you saying it is absolutely false?" the Court asked.

The AG sought time until Tuesday to obtain instructions from the State.

The Court also noted that the petitioner's allegations covered the entirety of West Bengal, making it necessary to ascertain the factual position before passing any blanket interim direction.

When Bandopadhyay sought an order restraining the State from removing loudspeakers, the Court questioned how such an order could be enforced in the absence of specific instances.

"If we pass this order, when it comes to us in contempt, how will we implement that order? There must be specific instances," the Court observed.

Bandopadhyay subsequently suggested that any interim protection could, at least, be confined to Hooghly district.

The Bench declined to pass an immediate interim order and adjourned the matter to enable the State to obtain instructions.

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

Case No: WPA(P) 401 of 2026