The Bombay High Court has asked the Maharashtra government to specify immediate measures for controlling noise pollution, firecrackers, laser beams and modified sound systems during festival processions, warning that existing enforcement cannot rely only on fines after citizens have already been affected.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation initiated over noise pollution during the ongoing Ganesh and other festivals. The court asked the state government pleader to take instructions and return at 4 pm with details of the measures planned to ensure compliance with the law on public streets and during processions.
“We don’t want to be adversarial… we are not preventing the procession,” the bench said, while making clear that its concern was the impact of high noise levels on citizens’ health. The court said the state machinery needed to act preventively rather than allow violations to occur and impose fines afterwards.
The court noted that the permissible upper limit for noise in residential areas is 55 decibels. Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, appointed to assist the court along with advocate Anand Pai as amici, said officers should be tasked with preventing violations on the spot instead of only prosecuting offenders later. He also suggested that manufacturers could be required to disclose the decibel levels of firecrackers on their packaging.
The bench said firecrackers were toxic pollutants and questioned whether their use on public streets should be stopped. It also stressed that loudspeakers and processions must follow existing norms, particularly when passing hospitals and housing complexes. Processions should move slowly through such areas, the court said.
The court referred to a recent order by the Nagpur police commissioner prohibiting modified sound systems with DJs and laser beams during festivals and processions. The ban is in force from September 4 to November 1. The bench praised the order and asked why similar action could not be implemented in Mumbai and elsewhere in Maharashtra.
The court also raised concerns over the absence of a uniform policy and coordination among police commissioners when cities face similar problems. It asked the state about the availability of decibel meters and the data being collected on noise complaints and enforcement action.
During the hearing, an advocate from Nashik said a 2009 public interest litigation had led the state to invest almost ₹99 lakh in decibel-reading meters for police stations, but claimed that most police stations did not have the equipment. The state lawyer said messages aimed at preventing pollution had been circulated on social media the previous year, while nodal officers had been appointed and data would be collected on measures taken and complaints received this year.
Lawyers also urged enforcement of the restriction on firecrackers after 10 pm on public streets. The court heard concerns that noise from processions enters homes, affects residents in adjoining buildings and leaves people stranded in cars on congested roads.
The court said it would pass an order after hearing the state’s statement on its proposed measures. It indicated that directions would be considered only if the government’s response was not sufficiently proactive, noting that existing laws and earlier judgments already provide a framework for controlling noise pollution.
