In Kolkata, the Calcutta High Court has officially dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged alleged police directives aimed at removing loudspeakers from mosques across West Bengal. The judicial bench concluded that the claims made within the petition were vague and lacked the necessary concrete evidentiary support to proceed further.
Judicial Proceedings and Arguments
The case was heard by a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Arup Banerjee. During the proceedings, the petitioner claimed that police officers had been holding meetings with mosque committees and issuing verbal instructions compelling them to take down loudspeakers. In response, the state government firmly maintained before the court that no such instructions had ever been issued by the police force.
Arguments Presented by Counsel
Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee argued that mosque representatives were given oral directives regarding the equipment. He emphasized that under Supreme Court guidelines, loudspeaker usage is permitted within a specified decibel limit. The counsel further contended that a public interest litigation should not be scrutinized through the lens of ordinary civil or criminal trials, stating that a PIL is intended to bring public interest issues before the court rather than operating as an adversarial lawsuit.
Court Inquiries and State Response
During the hearing, the court specifically asked the state government whether any meetings had taken place between police officials and mosque representatives. The state's Advocate General denied this occurrence, pointing out that the petition failed to identify which police officer allegedly issued the directives and provided no official documentation whatsoever. The state also noted that the petitioner relied primarily on media reports and information gathered from imams and mosque representatives, yet not a single affected mosque committee had chosen to approach the court directly.
Basis for Dismissal
Challenging the state's objections, the senior advocate reiterated that public interest matters should not be measured against standard litigation benchmarks and questioned why the state repeatedly asked why committee members did not approach the court themselves. Ultimately, the court found no adequate basis to continue hearing the matter. The bench concluded that the petition lacked sufficient concrete material to substantiate the claims of oral police directives, leading to the formal dismissal of the PIL by the High Court.
