# Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Over Alleged Loudspeaker Removal Directives in West Bengal Mosques

> The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation regarding alleged police instructions to remove loudspeakers from mosques in West Bengal. The court ruled that the allegations lacked clarity and sufficient concrete material.

**Type:** article · **Category:** India · **Published:** 2026-08-18 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/national/kalakatta-haikorta-ne-west-bengal-ki-masjidon-se-laudaspikara-hatane-ke-nirdesha-vali-janahita-yachika-kharija-ki-18112 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Calcutta High Court, West Bengal, loudspeaker controversy, public interest litigation, Kolkata news

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.

## What this means for you
**Across India:** This judicial decision clarifies the legal stance regarding administrative rules and guidelines governing sound amplification equipment at religious locations.

**In West Bengal:** Citizens and local committees are reminded that challenging administrative actions legally requires substantial evidence and formal documentation rather than reliance on vague claims.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Which court dismissed the public interest litigation?
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the PIL regarding alleged police directives to remove loudspeakers from mosques.

### 2. Which bench presided over the case?
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Arup Banerjee.

### 3. What was the stance of the state government?
The state government stated before the court that the police had not issued any instructions to remove loudspeakers from mosques.

### 4. What was the primary reason for the dismissal of the petition?
The court ruled that the allegations lacked clarity and were not supported by sufficient concrete material or official documentation.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._