On Tuesday, the Gujarat High Court issued a notice to the State government in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) plea requesting that the Gujarat government consider prohibiting loudspeakers in mosques [Dharmendra Vishnubhai P Rajapati v. State of Gujarat].
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri issued notice on a petition filed by Dharmendra Vishnubhai, a doctor from Gujarat's Gandhinagar area.
When the Court inquired about the decibel authorised for the use of a microphone under the State's Noise Pollution Rules, the petitioner stated that sounds up to 80 dB are permitted, yet mosques utilise loudspeakers with sound levels above 200 decibels.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the matter of Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association and Others, which granted noise pollution control directions in the year 2000.
"No religion or religious sect can claim that use of loudspeakers for prayers or for worships or for celebrating the religious festivals is an essential part of the religious practice and is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. As per the Supreme Court's decision in Church of God's case, there exists no right to use loudspeakers and a citizen cannot be forced to listen something which they do not desire of," the petitioner contended.
In response to a question about noise pollution caused by band instruments at weddings, the petitioner explained that, unlike the use of loudspeakers in mosques, which occurs every day from 5:30 PM to 9:00 PM, a wedding ceremony occurs just once in a person's lifetime.
"Why the people who don't believe in Islam have to listen to such noise pollution by mosque? Even when there is restrictions in use of loudspeakers during Ganapati festival, then why the same cannot be applied in cases of mosques," the petitioner argued.
The Court issued notice on the matter, returnable on March 10, 2022, after considering the petitioner's remarks and the issue raised in the plea.
The petitioner was represented by Dharmesh C Gurjar, an attorney.