A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee was hearing a plea filed by advocate Md. Danish Farooqui, who alleged that police officials had issued blanket oral directions to religious institutions, including mosques and temples, requiring the removal of loudspeakers. The petition further claimed that mosque authorities had been subjected to pressure and that loudspeakers had consequently been removed from nearly 4,000 mosques across the State.
The Court, however, found the allegations to be bereft of the evidentiary foundation necessary to sustain a writ petition.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had relied upon information allegedly received from imams and members of the management committees of various places of worship in Hooghly. Yet, none of these persons had placed any material before the Court, nor had the petition annexed documents capable of substantiating the allegations.
Emphasising that judicial intervention cannot rest on unverified assertions, the Court observed that no particulars had been furnished regarding the thousands of mosques from which loudspeakers were allegedly removed under threat of coercive action. Equally, the petition failed to attribute any specific overt act to the police authorities or produce contemporaneous documentation in support of its claims.
The Court made it clear that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot assume the character of proof in the absence of credible evidence.
The Bench also took note of the fact that the petition did not allege that police personnel had physically entered any place of worship to remove loudspeakers or seize equipment. Further, a newspaper report relied upon by the petitioner did not, according to the Court, indicate arbitrary or whimsical action on the part of the authorities.
The PIL had challenged what were described as unwritten and legally unauthorised directions issued by police officials. It was contended that the authorities had neither issued a formal order nor undertaken an assessment of decibel levels to determine whether the use of loudspeakers violated the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The petitioner had also invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, asserting that azaan constitutes an integral aspect of Islamic religious practice and that a blanket prohibition would infringe the freedom of religion.
During the earlier hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that meetings had allegedly been convened by police stations in Hooghly on August 3, where representatives of mosques and temples were verbally asked to remove loudspeakers. It was argued that the absence of any written order rendered such directions arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The State, however, questioned the very basis of the proceedings, contending that the allegations lacked specificity and that no affected imam or other representative had independently come forward to substantiate the claims.
Accepting the objection that the plea was devoid of supporting evidence, the High Court ultimately declined to grant any relief. The ruling underscores the settled principle that allegations of administrative excess or infringement of fundamental rights must rest on demonstrable facts, and that constitutional courts cannot exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction merely on the strength of suspicion, hearsay or unsubstantiated apprehension.
The post Calcutta High Court dismisses plea alleging coercive removal of mosque loudspeakers, Cites lack of evidence appeared first on India Legal.