Pune’s dispute over festival noise has escalated after Vidyanand Bapat said he would file a defamation case against some Ganesh mandals for allegedly mocking him during the immersion procession, while the police commissioner has assured action in the matter, according to a report by Loksatta – Pune.
Bapat had raised objections to the use of loudspeakers and the obstruction caused to traffic during a planning meeting held at the Pune Municipal Corporation before the Ganesh festival. The report said he was removed from the meeting after pressure was allegedly exerted on him. A video of the incident later circulated on social media, bringing wider attention to his objections.
The noise issue subsequently became a subject of public mobilisation in Pune. Citizens organised marches in support of Bapat’s position, and the report also referred to an incident in which he was assaulted. His objections remained part of the public debate throughout the festival, particularly around the use of sound systems and the impact of processions on public movement.
During the immersion procession, some mandals reportedly presented tableaux and displays mocking Bapat because they disagreed with his position. Some participants carried placards reading “Bapat Missing”, while a dhol-tasha group displayed Bapat’s photograph on a drum panel alongside a message stating that nobody in Pune was troubled by dhol-tasha performances.
The report also said that statements made by Bapat were used in songs played through loudspeakers during the procession. Videos of these incidents were circulated on social media. Bapat has objected to the use of his photographs, statements and public references in the displays and is preparing to pursue the matter in court as a defamation claim.
The episode brings together two unresolved aspects of festival management in the city: the regulation of sound in densely populated public spaces and the manner in which civic disagreements are handled during large public events. Bapat’s original objections were raised in an official municipal planning meeting, while the later response took place during a public procession watched by residents and recorded on social media.
The police response mentioned in the report is an assurance from the police commissioner that action would be taken. The report does not specify the sections under which any action may be initiated, whether a formal complaint has already been registered, or the details of the defamation case Bapat intends to file. Those steps will determine how the dispute moves from a public festival controversy into formal legal and administrative proceedings.
