Minority Issues – SC, ST, Dalits, OBC, Reservations, etc.

Why Bombay HC said use of loudspeakers is not essential to religion?

Explained | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Mains level: Right to freedom of religion;

Why in the News?

The High Court was hearing a petition from two residents’ groups in Mumbai’s Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), and Chunabhatti areas, complaining about mosques and madrasas using loudspeakers too loudly and at forbidden times.

What are the present directions by the Bombay High Court?

  • The Court directed the state to implement a mechanism for controlling decibel levels in loudspeakers and sound-emitting devices at religious places, suggesting the use of “calibration or auto-fixation” of decibel limits.
  • The Mumbai Police Commissioner is required to ensure police officers use mobile applications to measure decibel levels and identify violations.
  • A four-step graded penalty system was prescribed, including caution for first-time offenders, fines for repeat violations, seizure of loudspeakers and cancellation of licenses for continued violations, and initiation of complaints against the violators.

Why did the Bombay High Court rule that the use of loudspeakers is not essential to religious practices (ERP)?

  • Non-Essential Practice: The court emphasized that using loudspeakers for prayers or religious discourses does not constitute an essential part of any religion. It clarified that such practices are not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice religion.
  • Public Health Concerns: The court highlighted that noise pollution poses significant health hazards. It asserted that allowing the unrestricted use of loudspeakers could infringe on the rights of residents living nearby, thus prioritizing public interest and health over the claimed religious rights associated with loudspeaker use.
  • Legal Framework Compliance: The ruling reinforced that all religious institutions must comply with noise pollution regulations, specifically the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which set permissible noise levels in residential areas. The court directed strict enforcement of these laws, indicating that violations should result in penalties rather than exemptions based on religion.

What are the Supreme Court Judgements related to essential religious practices (ERP)?

  • Shirur Mutt Case (1954): This case established the foundation for the ERP doctrine, where the Supreme Court ruled that Article 25 protects not only religious beliefs but also the outward expressions of those beliefs through rituals and ceremonies. The court emphasized that what constitutes an essential part of religion should be determined based on the doctrines of that religion itself.
  • Durgah Committee Case (1961): In this ruling, the Supreme Court adopted a more restrictive approach, stating that only practices essential and integral to a religion are protected under Article 25. The court differentiated between superstitious practices and those that are essential, marking a shift to a narrower interpretation of protected religious practices.
  • Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1995): This case involved the Babri Masjid land acquisition issue. The Supreme Court held that while offering prayers is an essential Islamic practice, doing so in a mosque is not necessarily required unless the mosque has specific religious significance, highlighting an inconsistency in applying the ERP test.
  • Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. Maharashtra (2016): The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that the use of loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice and cannot be claimed as a fundamental right under Article 25 (freedom of religion) or Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
  • Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018): The Supreme Court ruled that barring women from entering the Sabarimala temple violated their rights to equality and non-discrimination.

Way forward: 

  • Implementation of Strict Noise Regulations: Ensure effective enforcement of noise pollution laws, using technology like mobile apps to monitor decibel levels, and impose a clear and consistent penalty system for violations at religious places.
  • Public Awareness and Sensitization: Raise awareness about the non-essential nature of loudspeaker use in religious practices, while balancing religious freedom with public health and the rights of nearby residents. Encourage dialogue between religious institutions and local authorities to find peaceful solutions.

Mains PYQ:

Q What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of Secularism? (UPSC IAS/2019)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship January Batch Launch
Talk To Mentor
💥💥Mentorship January Batch Launch
Talk To Mentor