The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation that accused West Bengal police of verbally ordering the removal of loudspeakers from places of worship without any written order or legal backing.
Background of the Case
Petitioner Md. Danish Farooqui moved the court claiming that on August 3, 2026, police stations in Hooghly district held meetings where representatives of mosques and temples were told, verbally, to take down their loudspeakers with immediate effect. The plea alleged that under the fear of coercive action, loudspeakers were removed from more than 4,000 mosques across the state.
Representations were later sent to the Hooghly District Magistrate, the Commissioner of Police, and eventually to the state's Home Department and the Director General of Police, but the petitioner said none of these brought any response.
Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that unwritten oral instructions violated natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the Noise Pollution Rules of 2000 do not impose a blanket ban on loudspeakers, but regulate their use through decibel limits and fixed time slots.
Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, appearing for the state, disputed the claims. He pointed out that the petition did not name any specific officer, carried no supporting document, and gave no particulars of the 4,000 mosques it referred to. He argued that no overt act had been attributed to any authority, and that a PIL built on unverified assertions cannot be entertained.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee sided with the state's objections. The court noted that not a single document had been placed on record to prove the alleged directions, and no particulars of the affected mosques were furnished anywhere in the petition.
It also observed that even the news report relied upon by the petitioner only mentioned that police had urged mosques to limit high-decibel loudspeakers, with nothing suggesting force or arbitrary conduct.
The bench remarked that a writ court's adjudication rests solely on affidavit evidence, and where facts are not pleaded or supported, relief cannot be granted. As the court put it,
"Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof."
Decision
Holding that the petition lacked factual foundation, the court dismissed the writ petition, WPA (P) 401 of 2026, filed by Md.
Danish Farooqui against the State of West Bengal, with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Md. Danish Farooqui vs. The State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number: WPA (P) 401 of 2026
Judges: Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J. and Atarup Banerjee, J. (Division Bench)
Decision Date: August 18, 2026
