Representative Image
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday, August 13, questioned the Bharatiya Janata Party-led West Bengal government on whether it had directed mosques to remove loudspeakers in the state.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee asked the State government after a public interest litigation (PIL) opposed the alleged police instructions directing mosques to take down loudspeakers.
Filed by lawyer Danish Farooqui, the plea alleged that the authorities issued “blanket verbal directions” in multiple districts to places of worship, including temples and mosques.
“The police officials, without any written order, notification, or legal sanction, and without conducting any exercise to measure the decibel levels of the sound emanating from these loudspeakers to ascertain any violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, are coercing the management of these religious institutions to comply with their unlawful diktats,” the plea alleged.
Farooqui said that azaan, the call to prayer, is an essential and integral part of the Islamic faith, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. The blanket ban, he said, was a direct violation of this fundamental right.
Last week, several mosque committees in several districts of Bengal had claimed that police officers were verbally instructing them to remove the loudspeaker from the building without providing a written order.
Some committees said they were called to a police station where officials gathered mosque and temple representatives to instruct them of this order.
Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing Farooqui, said that the police pressurised mosque committees to remove the loudspeakers of about 4,000 mosques without a written notice.
“This has now become practice that now written order is not served,” he said.
Banerjee argued that the law decrees a certain conformity regarding noise levels of the loudspeakers but still allows their use. He urged the court to continue allowing the use of loudspeakers in accordance with norms and earlier court rulings.
The court, however, said it would have to examine the State’s stand on the claims before passing an interim order.
Representing the State government, Advocate AG Mitra argued that the petition lacked merit and asked the court to dismiss it with costs.
Mitra said the petition does not mention any mosque where the loudspeakers were actually removed. “Can the court proceed on this? Not a single name,” he said.
The court asked if the police had taken such action at all, to which the State’s counsel said the petitioner has to establish the case that an officer approached a mosque to direct removal of loudspeaker.
“Not a single imam has come forward. Who is saying? The petitioner is saying, ‘I have come to know’. Some responsibility has to be taken,” Mitra said.
The court acknowledged the advocate’s point, but asked him to clarify the stance on the allegations. “Is this your contention that this is absolutely false?” Justice Chakraborty asked.
Mirta sought time until Tuesday, stating he would have to seek instructions from the relevant authorities to respond to that question.
When Banerjee sought an order restricting the State from removing the loudspeakers, the court questioned how such an order could be given when the particulars are missing. He flagged the lack of specific instances where the mosque managements were directed by police officials.
Instead, Banerjee asked for an immediate interim order confined to Hooghly district, which the court declined. It adjourned the matter till the State obtained its instructions.
This post was last modified on August 13, 2026 5:40 pm