Today(18th Sept),The Bombay High Court ruled that noise pollution from loudspeakers and sound systems during Ganesh Chaturthi is equally harmful during other festivals like Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi. The decision follows public interest litigations (PILs) seeking restrictions on DJs, dance, and laser lights during Eid processions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: Today(18th Sept), The Bombay High Court made a ruling addressing the issue of noise pollution during public festivals. The court stated that if the excessive use of loudspeakers and sound systems during Ganesh Chaturthi is harmful, the same applies to other festivals such as Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi. The ruling comes in response to a series of public interest litigations (PILs) that sought restrictions on the use of “DJs,” “dance,” and “laser lights” during processions held for Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, was hearing PILs that called for a ban on the use of loud, high-decibel sound systems during the Eid processions. The petitioners urged the court to direct civic bodies and the police to refrain from granting permissions for such practices, arguing that they breach permissible noise levels.
The petitions specifically highlighted that neither the Quran nor the Hadith prescribes the use of loud music, DJ systems, or laser lights in religious celebrations.
“The Quran and Hadith do not endorse these practices for religious observance,”
-the petitioners claimed, emphasizing that such activities contribute to noise pollution and disturb the public.
Previous Ruling on Noise Pollution Referred
During the hearing, the Bombay High Court referred to a ruling it had passed just before the Ganesh festival. In that ruling, the court had reinforced the ban on using sound systems and loudspeakers that exceed the permissible noise limits established under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. These regulations, applicable nationwide, strictly control noise levels during festivals and other public events to minimize harmful impacts on public health and the environment.
The petitioners, represented by advocate Owais Pechkar, argued that Eid should be included under the same regulations. However, the bench noted that the previous ruling already applied to all public festivals.
Addressing the argument that the court’s previous ruling should specifically mention Eid, the bench responded firmly.
“The order said ‘public festivals,'”
– the bench remarked, making it clear that the ruling was inclusive of all festivals, without singling out any particular one.
The bench added-
“If it is harmful for Ganesh Chaturthi, it is harmful for Eid also.”
With this statement, the court underscored the universal nature of noise pollution concerns, stating that restrictions on sound systems and loudspeakers should apply equally to all public celebrations.
Scientific Evidence Needed on Laser Lights
Another key issue raised in the PILs was the use of laser lights during processions. The court, however, took a cautious approach to this issue, asking the petitioners to provide scientific evidence demonstrating the harmful effects of laser lights on humans.
“Why didn’t you conduct your research?”
-the bench asked the petitioners, pointing out the absence of scientific evidence in the case.
“How can we decide on this matter without scientific proof that it harms humans?”
-the court added.
This pointed inquiry revealed the court’s reliance on scientific evidence when addressing technological concerns such as the use of laser lights. The bench stressed that petitions filed in court should be backed by solid research to help the judiciary make informed decisions.
The bench expressed its disappointment over the insufficient preparation by the petitioners, emphasizing that proper research should be conducted before filing a PIL. The court reiterated the importance of assisting the judiciary with accurate information and studies to ensure effective rulings.
“That’s the issue. You must conduct basic research before filing a PIL. It’s your responsibility to assist the court in providing effective guidance.”
– the bench said, indicating that unresearched petitions could hinder the legal process.
The judges further added-
“We are not experts. We do not know the ‘L’ of laser,”
underscoring the court’s dependence on expert opinions in specialized areas such as laser technology.
