Executive Summary
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged verbal directives by West Bengal police ordering the removal of loudspeakers from mosques and religious institutions across the state. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee held that the entire petition rested on unsubstantiated claims and hearsay, reiterating the well-established legal principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace concrete evidentiary proof.
Factual Background & Allegations
The proceedings arose from a writ petition filed in the public interest by advocate Md. Danish Farooqui (Md. Danish Farooqui v. State of West Bengal and Others). Represented by Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, the petitioner challenged what was described as "blanket verbal diktats" issued by state police authorities across multiple districts, notably Hooghly.
According to the petitioner:
- On August 3, local police stations convened meetings with representatives, Imams, and management committees of various places of worship—including both mosques and temples.
- During these interactions, police officers allegedly issued oral orders directing the immediate removal of loudspeakers installed on religious premises.
- The petitioner asserted that over 4,000 mosques were coerced into dismantling sound amplification systems under threat of official action, despite no written orders, formal notices, or official notifications being served.
- Furthermore, the petitioner argued that authorities failed to conduct any objective assessment or decibel-level measurements to determine whether the sound levels violated the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
From a constitutional standpoint, the petitioner contended that the call to prayer (azaan) constitutes an essential practice of the Islamic faith. It was argued that arbitrary, unwritten prohibitions on sound amplification infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, alongside violating principles of natural justice.
State Opposition & Preliminary Objections
The maintainability of the petition was strongly contested by the State of West Bengal, represented by Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra alongside Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharyya.
The State pointed out critical procedural and evidentiary flaws in the filing:
- Lack of Standing & First-Hand Statements: No Imam, committee member, or administrative official from any of the allegedly affected religious institutions came forward to join the petition or file an affidavit.
- Third-Party Hearsay: The petition was founded entirely on secondary information—claims of "what the petitioner came to know"—rather than direct, verifiable testimony from affected parties.
- Absence of Specificity: The pleadings failed to identify specific dates, locations, or police personnel responsible for carrying out the alleged enforcement actions.
Judicial Analysis & Ruling
Upon evaluating the record, the Division Bench declined to grant any interim or final relief, finding the petition wholly devoid of evidentiary backing.
- Absence of Contemporaneous Documentary Evidence
The Court emphasized that public interest litigation cannot be entertained on the basis of sweeping, unverified assertions. The Bench noted that despite alleging the removal of loudspeakers from thousands of locations, the petitioner failed to annex a single contemporaneous document, photograph, written complaint, or administrative record to support the claims. - Failure to Attribute Specific Overt Acts
The Bench highlighted that the petition did not contain specific pleadings alleging that police officers physically entered religious premises, seized equipment, or directly interfered with religious practices. Even the secondary newspaper reports cited within the petition failed to demonstrate arbitrary or illegal conduct on the part of law enforcement. - Reaffirmation of Evidentiary Thresholds
Dismissing the plea, the Court reiterated the cardinal principle of jurisprudence:
"No particulars have been given as regards the 4,000 mosques in West Bengal from which under threat of coercive actions, loudspeakers have been removed. No specific overt act has been attributed to the police authorities and no contemporaneous documents have been produced in support of the averments made in the writ petition. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof."
Legal Takeaways
| Key Legal Aspect | Judicial Finding |
| Evidentiary Standard in PILs | High Courts will not issue writs based on unverified, generalized assertions lacking documentary support. |
| Pleadings Requirement | Petitions challenging state action must clearly attribute specific overt acts to identified authority figures. |
| Hearsay vs. Actual Proof | Allegations of fundamental rights violations require direct proof or first-hand affidavits from aggrieved parties, not third-party assumptions. |
| Final Disposition | Petition dismissed; no relief granted due to complete lack of backing evidence. |
Discription: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged removal of loudspeakers from mosques by police in West Bengal, citing a complete absence of evidence.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee ruled in Md. Danish Farooqui v. State of West Bengal, holding that the petitioner failed to provide contemporaneous documents, specific dates, or complaints from any affected religious institutions to substantiate claims that 4,000 mosques were orally ordered to remove sound systems.
Rejecting arguments that police acted arbitrarily without checking decibel levels under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, the Court dismissed the plea, firmly reiterating that suspicion, howsoever high, cannot serve as a substitute for actual proof.