The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that police authorities in West Bengal were orally directing mosque committees to remove loudspeakers. The Division Bench found that the allegations were vague and were not supported by specific material identifying the authority or establishing that such directions had actually been issued.
The matter was heard by Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner alleged that police officials had conducted meetings with representatives of mosques and orally instructed them to remove loudspeakers, despite Supreme Court directions governing their use through prescribed noise limits.
The State disputed the allegation at the outset. The Advocate General, on instructions, told the Court that "nothing was done" by the police authorities as alleged.
The Bench also asked whether the alleged meetings with mosque representatives had taken place. The State answered in the negative.
The State further argued that the PIL was based on an alleged verbal instruction from an unidentified authority and lacked supporting documents. It submitted that the allegations were essentially a "bald allegation" and that newspaper reports and information allegedly received from Imams or mosque representatives could not, by themselves, establish the claim.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, the Bench referred to the existing guidelines concerning the use of loudspeakers and considered the petitioner's contention that police intervention would arise only where the prescribed noise limits were breached.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, opposed the State's objection to the PIL. He argued that public interest proceedings should not be treated like an ordinary civil trial requiring every fact to be proved at the threshold.
"PIL is not adversarial litigation. The grievance or cause of action is more important. It's the duty of the Court to look into the grievance," he submitted.
He also argued that the petitioner was seeking enforcement of existing Supreme Court directions and maintained, "As long as I follow SC directions, no one can interfere."
The Bench observed that
"grievance has to be seen, technicalities cannot be gone into." However, the State continued to maintain that the petition lacked sufficient particulars to establish the alleged police action.
Court's Decision
After considering the rival submissions, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the PIL. The Court did not accept the allegations concerning oral directions to mosque committees as sufficiently specific or supported by material capable of warranting judicial intervention.
Case Details
Case Title: Md Danish Farooqui vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Case Number: WPA(P)/401/2026
Judge: Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee
Decision Date: August 18, 2026
