Introduction:
The Bombay High Court has indicated that it will issue a detailed order imposing stringent restrictions on noise pollution during religious processions, including a complete prohibition on bursting firecrackers on public roads and the use of cylinders as musical instruments by Dhol groups. The Court also proposed measures to ensure that organisers comply with permissible noise limits and that violations of the Noise Pollution Rules have meaningful consequences.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale was hearing a suo motu matter concerning noise pollution generated during religious processions in Maharashtra. The proceedings were taken up against the backdrop of complaints concerning excessive noise caused by DJs, firecrackers and other amplified or percussion-based forms of celebration during religious festivals.
The matter assumed particular urgency during the ongoing Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations, when the Court was informed about DJs allegedly continuing to operate beyond midnight, causing significant disturbance to residents. On September 21, the Bench had directed the Maharashtra Government to explain the steps being taken by the authorities to control noise pollution, particularly that caused by DJs during religious processions.
When the matter was heard again on September 22, the Bench heard Amicus Curiae Advocate Aspi Chinoy and Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe. After considering the submissions, the Court indicated the nature of the operative directions it proposes to issue and stated that a detailed order would follow.
The proposed directions are aimed at regulating conduct during public religious processions without prohibiting religious celebrations themselves. The Court made it clear that it was not opposed to religious processions or festivals. Instead, it emphasised that celebrations must remain within the boundaries prescribed by law and must take into account the rights and interests of other members of society.
Among the measures indicated by the Bench is a complete prohibition on bursting firecrackers on public roads. The Court also proposed making it mandatory for religious mandals organising processions to prominently display the permissions obtained from the competent authorities. This would enable authorities and members of the public to identify whether a procession is being conducted with the requisite permissions and subject to specified conditions.
The Court further proposed that the police and other competent authorities record decibel levels during processions and regulate the noise accordingly. Where noise exceeds permissible limits, the authorities would be required to take action in accordance with law.
Another important aspect of the proposed order concerns the use of cylinders as musical instruments by Dhol groups. The Bench indicated that such use would be prohibited, apparently in view of the noise levels and the nature of the equipment being used during processions.
The Court also suggested that the police authorities impose a condition requiring organisers to furnish a security deposit before being granted permission for processions. If the organisers violate the Noise Pollution Rules, the deposit could be forfeited as a financial consequence.
The proposed security deposit mechanism was linked by the Court to the “polluter pays” principle. The Bench observed that there was no shortage of funds with the mandals and that requiring a security deposit could operate as a deterrent against violations.
At the heart of the proceedings is the constitutional and statutory balance between the right to celebrate religious festivals and the right of other citizens to live without unreasonable noise and disturbance. The Court’s observations suggest that religious freedom does not provide an unrestricted licence to disregard laws regulating public order, environmental conditions or permissible noise levels.
The Bench also referred to the annual Wari pilgrimage, during which thousands of people participate in religious processions in Maharashtra. The Court noted that participants traditionally use taals, or hand cymbals, and sing devotional songs, yet the event can take place without creating the kind of excessive noise that has become a concern in other processions.
The reference was made not as a criticism of religious celebrations but as an illustration that religious devotion and public celebrations can coexist with consideration for the surrounding community. The Court stressed that citizens must understand their duties towards society while exercising their own rights.
The issue is particularly relevant under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Rules prescribe ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas and regulate the use of loudspeakers and public address systems. They also place restrictions on the use of loudspeakers and sound-producing instruments during night hours, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
The proceedings before the Bombay High Court therefore concern not merely the use of DJs or firecrackers but the enforcement of existing legal standards during large public gatherings. The Court’s proposed directions seek to ensure that permission for a procession is accompanied by effective monitoring and accountability.
The Court has also indicated that the proposed restrictions are not directed at any particular religion or festival. The focus is on the nature and intensity of noise and on compliance with generally applicable legal requirements.
The detailed order is awaited. Until then, the observations made during the hearing indicate that the High Court intends to adopt a stricter regulatory framework for noise generated during religious processions, while preserving the right to conduct lawful religious celebrations.
Arguments of the Parties:
The proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Bombay High Court after the Bench took cognisance of concerns regarding noise pollution during religious processions. Unlike an ordinary adversarial dispute involving a private petitioner and respondent, the present proceedings place the Court in a supervisory role concerning implementation of existing environmental and noise-control laws.
The Court appointed Advocate Aspi Chinoy as Amicus Curiae to assist it in examining the legal and factual issues arising from noise pollution during religious processions. The Amicus Curiae assisted the Court in considering the regulatory framework and the measures that could be adopted to ensure compliance with permissible noise levels.
The concerns before the Court included the use of DJs and other high-volume sound systems during religious processions. The proceedings gained additional significance during the Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations, when the Court noted allegations that DJs were being operated even beyond midnight.
The Court’s concern was not restricted to the fact that religious processions generate sound. Rather, the focus was on sound levels exceeding the limits prescribed under law and on the impact of such excessive noise on residents and the wider public.
The Maharashtra Government, represented by Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe, was required to explain what measures had been undertaken to control noise pollution. The Government’s participation was therefore directed towards addressing the regulatory and enforcement aspects of the problem.
The State authorities were expected to explain how police and other competent agencies were monitoring processions and ensuring compliance with the applicable Noise Pollution Rules. The Court’s proposed requirement that decibel levels be recorded reflects its concern that enforcement should be based on measurable standards rather than merely subjective assessments of whether a procession is excessively loud.
The proposed security deposit mechanism also arose in this context. The Court suggested that mandals could be required to deposit a specified amount as a condition for obtaining permission to conduct a procession. The amount could then be forfeited if the organisers violated the Noise Pollution Rules.
The Bench explained that such a mechanism could serve as a deterrent. By making organisers financially accountable for violations, the Court sought to ensure that the responsibility for maintaining permissible noise levels does not rest entirely on police authorities.
The proposed approach is connected to the environmental law principle commonly described as the “polluter pays” principle. Under that principle, a person or entity responsible for environmental harm may be required to bear the cost associated with the consequences of the pollution. In the present context, the Court contemplated using the security deposit as an enforcement mechanism rather than allowing violations to remain without meaningful consequences.
The Court also proposed that mandals be required to display the permissions granted for their processions. This requirement would create greater transparency concerning whether a particular procession has received official approval and what conditions may have been imposed by the competent authority.
Such a requirement would also facilitate enforcement. Police officers and members of the public would be able to identify whether the procession was authorised and, potentially, whether its organisers were complying with the conditions attached to the permission.
The issue of firecrackers formed another significant component of the Court’s proposed directions. The Bench indicated that it would completely prohibit the bursting of firecrackers on public roads during religious processions. The proposal appears to recognise that public roads are shared spaces and that the use of firecrackers in such areas creates both noise-related and public-safety concerns.
The Court separately proposed a ban on the use of cylinders as musical instruments by Dhol groups. The measure is directed at the particular method of producing amplified percussion sounds during processions and reflects the Court’s broader concern about high-decibel forms of celebration.
The State did not appear to dispute the underlying need to comply with permissible noise standards. The central issue was therefore how the existing legal restrictions should be implemented effectively during large-scale religious gatherings.
The Bench also considered the broader question of how religious celebrations can be conducted without causing unreasonable inconvenience to other citizens. During the hearing, the Court referred to the Wari pilgrimage in Maharashtra as an example of a large religious gathering in which participants use traditional instruments such as taals and sing devotional songs without, according to the Court, creating comparable levels of noise pollution.
The reference to Wari was significant because the Court was seeking to distinguish religious expression from excessive noise. The Bench stated that it was not against religious processions or celebrations and that it wanted citizens to understand their responsibilities towards society.
The Court’s remarks therefore suggest that its concern is not with the religious character of the events but with the manner in which certain activities are conducted in public spaces.
The Advocate General’s role at the hearing was to assist the Court regarding the Government’s existing measures and proposed enforcement framework. The detailed order is expected to set out the precise obligations imposed upon mandals, police authorities and other competent agencies.
The legal context also requires consideration of the rights of residents affected by excessive noise. Noise pollution can interfere with sleep, health, education, work and the general enjoyment of one’s home. At the same time, religious groups have constitutional protections concerning religious practice and expression.
The legal issue is therefore one of regulation rather than a simple conflict between religious and non-religious interests. The State is required to ensure that the exercise of one person’s or group’s rights does not result in conduct prohibited by generally applicable law or substantially interfere with the rights of others.
The proceedings also indicate the Court’s concern that existing rules should not remain merely theoretical. If decibel limits exist but authorities do not measure sound levels, or if violations are detected but no effective action follows, the regulatory framework becomes difficult to enforce.
The proposed system of measuring decibel levels, displaying permissions and imposing security deposits is intended to create an enforcement chain. Permission would be conditional, compliance would be measurable, and violations could have financial consequences.
The Court’s approach also recognises that organisers of large public events have a responsibility to ensure that their activities comply with applicable law. The proposed conditions would place part of that responsibility directly upon the mandals rather than leaving the entire burden to the police.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court has not yet pronounced its detailed final order in the proceedings. However, after hearing the Amicus Curiae and the Maharashtra Advocate General, the Division Bench indicated the principal directions that it intends to incorporate into the operative portion of its order.
The first major direction concerns firecrackers. The Court stated that it would order a complete ban on bursting firecrackers on public roads during religious processions.
The proposed restriction is significant because public roads are not exclusively controlled spaces for festival organisers. They are used by pedestrians, residents, emergency services and other road users. The Court’s approach indicates that the use of public roads for religious processions does not eliminate the State’s obligation to regulate activities that create excessive noise or other risks.
The Court also intends to make it mandatory for mandals to display the permissions granted for their processions. This requirement would introduce an element of transparency into the process of conducting religious events on public roads.
Permission to conduct a procession is not an unlimited authorisation. It can be accompanied by conditions concerning route, timing, sound systems, public safety and other aspects of the event. By requiring organisers to display their permissions, the Court seeks to make those conditions more readily enforceable.
Another significant direction concerns actual measurement of sound. The Court stated that police and other competent authorities would be required to record decibel levels during processions and regulate them in accordance with the permissible limits.
This aspect of the proposed order is particularly important because noise regulation depends upon objective standards. Whether a sound level is legally permissible cannot always be determined simply by listening to the sound. Measurement provides an objective basis for enforcement.
The proposed direction would therefore place an affirmative responsibility on enforcement agencies to monitor noise during processions rather than waiting for individual complaints to be made.
Where noise exceeds permissible levels, the Court stated that the police and competent authorities must act in accordance with law. This indicates that the proposed framework is intended to strengthen implementation of existing legal standards rather than create an entirely separate regime outside the statutory framework.
The Bench also proposed prohibiting the use of cylinders as musical instruments by Dhol groups. The Court’s concern appears to arise from the excessive sound generated by such instruments when used during processions.
The proposed prohibition would operate alongside the general requirement to maintain permissible decibel levels. It represents a more specific regulatory measure directed at a particular source of high-volume sound.
The Court’s most notable enforcement proposal involves the security deposit. The Bench suggested that police authorities should impose a condition upon mandals requiring them to furnish a specified security amount before permission is granted for a procession.
If the organisers subsequently violate the Noise Pollution Rules, the amount could be forfeited. The Court explained that the mechanism would act as a deterrent and referred to the “polluter pays” principle.
The underlying reasoning is that regulatory conditions are more likely to be effective when non-compliance carries a tangible consequence. A security deposit would create a financial incentive for organisers to ensure that their processions remain within permissible noise limits.
The Court also observed that there was no dearth of money with the mandals. While this was an oral observation during the hearing rather than a final legal finding, it illustrates the Bench’s view that the financial consequence should not be treated as an unreasonable burden on organisations capable of conducting large public celebrations.
At the same time, the detailed order will have to specify the legal basis, amount, procedure and safeguards governing any such security deposit and forfeiture mechanism. The final order will determine the precise contours of the direction.
The Court’s remarks concerning the Wari pilgrimage also form an important part of its reasoning. The Bench noted that thousands of people participate annually in the Wari during June, using taals and singing devotional songs, without creating the same kind of noise pollution that has become a concern in certain other religious processions.
The Court stated that citizens could learn from this example and emphasised that it was not against religious processions or celebrations. Its stated objective was to ensure that celebrations occur within the boundaries of law.
This distinction is important from a constitutional perspective. The proposed restrictions are framed around the manner in which celebrations are conducted rather than around the religious belief or festival being celebrated. The Court has not indicated that religious processions themselves are impermissible.
The Constitution protects freedom of religion under Article 25, subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III. Religious freedom, therefore, operates within a broader constitutional framework. Similarly, the right to speech and expression under Article 19 is subject to constitutionally recognised restrictions.
Noise regulation can consequently operate as a legitimate framework governing the manner in which public activities, including religious celebrations, are conducted. The existence of a religious purpose does not automatically exempt an activity from generally applicable laws concerning public safety, environmental protection or noise.
The proposed directions also reflect the principle that individual and collective rights must be exercised with regard to the rights of others. Residents living along procession routes may have legitimate interests in maintaining peace, sleep and ordinary living conditions. The State must therefore balance those interests with the right to conduct lawful religious activities.
The Court’s reference to DJs being operated beyond midnight was particularly relevant to this balance. Night-time noise has a heightened impact on residents, and the Noise Pollution Rules contain specific restrictions concerning the use of loudspeakers and public address systems during night hours, subject to the exceptions contemplated by law.
The proceedings also demonstrate the Court’s willingness to require administrative authorities to move eyond passive enforcement. Merely having rules prescribing permissi