PUNE: In a sharp and assertive intervention addressing systemic lapses in environmental and public law enforcement, the Bombay High Court has strongly reprimanded the state government and police administration over the absence of dedicated grievance redressal mechanisms for noise pollution. The court expressed intense displeasure that citizens still lack accessible platforms—such as dedicated helplines, WhatsApp numbers, or specialized mobile applications—to report illegal loudspeaker usage and excessive noise violations.
The proceedings unfolded before a division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, while hearing a public interest petition filed by Reena Richard, a resident and advocate from Thakur Village, Kandivali. The petitioner brought to the court’s attention that continuous noise pollution stemming from loudspeakers—particularly during early morning hours—violated statutory limits, yet local authorities at the Samta Nagar police station and wider municipal circles failed to take meaningful action despite repeated complaints. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that although the location encompasses sensitive zones like maternity homes, the area has not been formally gazetted as a silence zone by the state government.
Expressing profound annoyance at the administrative inertia, the High Court questioned the state machinery on how ordinary citizens—including the elderly, students, and sick individuals—are expected to seek immediate recourse when subjected to deafening noise. The bench pointedly asked state counsels how long the administration intended to drag its feet on implementing directions issued as far back as 2016, which mandated establishing helpline numbers like 112, designating specific police station grievance officers, and maintaining formal registers for noise complaints.
When government pleaders sought an extended four-week window to gather instructions and verify compliance details, the court rejected the delay. The bench sternly remarked that if the police administration and law enforcement agencies are unwilling or unable to follow binding judicial directives regarding noise control, they should file a formal affidavit explicitly stating that they are not bound to obey the law.
Concluding the hearing, the High Court granted the state a final week to submit comprehensive affidavits addressing the operationalization of complaint mechanisms and compliance metrics, warning that accountability measures would follow if statutory protocols continue to be ignored. Legal observers note that this ruling reinforces the judiciary’s firm stance on safeguarding citizens’ fundamental right to a peaceful environment free from unregulated acoustic disturbances.
