The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the use of loudspeakers and LCDs at the Maha Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj. The petitioners claimed these devices caused noise pollution, disrupting their meditation practices. However, the court ruled that the petition lacked concrete evidence to prove violations of noise limits.
Background of the Case
The PIL (No. 265 of 2025) was filed by Brahmachari Dayanand and another petitioner, residents of Uttarakhand temporarily residing at Sector 18, Mukti Marg, Prayagraj, during the Maha Kumbh. They alleged that neighboring camps used public address systems and LCD screens, generating excessive noise that interfered with their meditation and spiritual activities.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declares Jharkhand's 2010 Recruitment Process Illegal And Nullifies Entire Process
The petitioners sought court intervention to restrict the use of loudspeakers and amplifiers. They referenced Supreme Court judgments on noise pollution and submitted photographs of loudspeakers installed near their camp.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra scrutinized the petition and found it lacking in substantive evidence. While acknowledging the photographs of loudspeakers, the court noted these devices were placed on temporary roads designated for the Kumbh Mela and were likely used for announcements.
Read Also:- Poem Not Against Any Religion: Supreme Court Clarifies in Case Involving Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi
Critically, the petitioners failed to provide data demonstrating that noise levels exceeded permissible limits under India’s noise pollution laws. The court emphasized that mere installation of loudspeakers does not equate to statutory violations.
“The filing of the petition is based on an academic exercise undertaken based on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and producing few pictures of loudspeakers. Such a laconic petition cannot be countenanced.”
— Allahabad High Court Order Dated 10.2.2025
The bench dismissed the PIL, stating the claims were speculative and not backed by measurable proof.
Case Title: Brahmachari Dayanand Indian Inhabitant & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025)
