File complete record of loudspeaker removal process, HC tells police
The details asked for include: names of places of worship whose loudspeakers had been removed, measurements of volume emanating from the loudspeakers, whether the police had asked them to lower the volume and if they had complied; the notices sent to them, and whether, despite chances given to them to comply, they had not, before penalties were imposed and loudspeakers removed.
A bench of Justices R V Ghuge and M Sathaye initially stayed the imposition of penalties in these cases but were informed by senior counsel Yusuf Mucchala, appearing for the petitioners, that the fines had already been paid. The receipts were part of the petition.
The bench asked assistant public prosecutor (APP) S V Gavand whether similar action had been taken with respect to all religious establishments. 'Can we assume that now in Mumbai there is no place of worship with a loudspeaker on top?' asked Justice Ghuge.
Gavand consulted with senior inspector Sunil Shinde, of the Mumbai crime branch, before replying that loudspeakers had been removed only where they exceeded the prescribed limit.
The judge then asked whether the police had measured the volume to determine if the limit was breached. The APP replied in the affirmative. However, Advocate Muchhala informed the Bench that an RTI application filed in May (included in the petition) showed that the police department neither possessed special volume-measuring instruments nor trained personnel to use them. Both were mandatory according to the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment on the issue. He also referenced the 2023 Gujarat HC judgment which, rejecting a petition to ban loudspeakers on masjids, had ruled that the azaan did not constitute noise pollution.
'Arbitrary action has been taken on the basis of complaints by a political leader who has posted on social media that he's on a 'Bhonga Mukt Maharashtra' mission,' said Muchhala. 'Notices have been issued without details about when the prescribed volume limit was breached.' The petition contained copies of the notices issued, he informed the court. Some of them had been issued even after loudspeakers had been disconnected.
Muchhala further informed the court that a sample survey carried out by the petitioners of 117 mosques in Mumbai showed that 23 had been fined ₹ 5000 each since May, and 29 had had their loudspeaker license terminated.
The APP asked for two weeks' time to file a 'brief reply'. When the bench rejected this, APP Gavand said, 'This is not a life and death issue, it's not as if a demolition has taken place.'
Justice Ghuge then asked the APP if he knew why the azaan was called five times a day. 'It is a call telling believers that now is the time to pray. Namaz has to be offered at fixed times. Temples don't make similar calls because there are no fixed timings when people must go and pray there. If loudspeakers are completely removed, how will the people be called for namaz?'
The HC ruling comes a few days after Mumbai police commissioner Deven Bharti had said that the city was 'loud-speaker free'. While not naming any community, he claimed that following meetings with community leaders and trustees of religious bodies, more than 1,500 loudspeakers were removed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
35 minutes ago
- Hans India
Bihar: NIA charge sheets another accused in the PFI case, funds traced to Dubai
Patna: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has charge sheeted Md Sajjad Alam of East Champaran, Bihar, in connection with the anti-national activities of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), making him the 18th accused to be arrested and charge sheeted in the case. The NIA filed its supplementary charge sheet before the NIA Special Court, Patna, charging Sajjad under various sections of the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA(P)A). Sajjad, an active PFI cadre, was arrested at Delhi's IGI Airport in January this year upon his arrival from Dubai. According to NIA investigations, Sajjad was channelling illegal funds from Dubai to PFI operatives in Bihar through a syndicate operating in Karnataka and Kerala. These funds were allegedly used to further the criminal and unlawful activities of PFI even after the organisation was banned by the Union government. The NIA stated that the broader PFI conspiracy aimed to 'establish' Islamic rule in India by 2047 and involved activities designed to terrorise people and disrupt peace by spreading communal enmity. The case was originally registered on 12 July 2022 at Phulwarisharif Police Station, Patna, against 26 individuals under IPC sections. The NIA took over the probe, invoking the UA(P)A and previously charge sheeting 17 accused. The PFI module was initially busted by the Patna Police and the ATS in 2022 while conducting physical training camps for Muslim youths at Phulwarisharif under the PFI banner. The camps, held at the house of Mohammad Jalaluddin, a retired Jharkhand police sub-inspector, along with Athar Parvez, allegedly aimed at brainwashing youths against India. Athar Parvez's brother, Manzar Alam, was involved in the 2013 Patna Gandhi Maidan serial blast during Narendra Modi's 'Hunkar Rally'. The then Patna SSP, Manavjeet Singh Dhillon, had recommended handing over the case to the NIA, following which the agency began its probe. The NIA has indicated that further investigations in the case are ongoing to uncover deeper financial and operational networks of the banned PFI in Bihar and other states.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC upholds acquittal in dowry death case: ‘Money demanded for legal expenses does not come within the meaning of dowry'
The Gujarat High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the 2013 order of a trial court in Amreli district, acquitting the in-laws of a deceased woman from charges of dowry death, observing that the contentious sum of Rs 50,000 demanded by the husband's family was to 'meet legal expenses' of an unrelated criminal case filed against the man and his family by another party. In an order pronounced on June 26, the Division Bench of Justice Cheekati M Roy and Justice D M Vyas noted that the demand of Rs 50,000, which the prosecution submitted as being the reason for the deceased to allegedly die by suicide in August 2011, did not meet the necessary conditions defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to be considered as 'dowry'. The HC, in its order, said that since the charges were framed against the accused for a case related to dowry death, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. Noting that the medical evidence of the autopsy conducted on the deceased had recorded cardio-respiratory failure, the court said, 'Though it is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased has consumed poison, unable to meet the demand made by the accused to arrange for Rs 50,000/- for the purpose of meeting the legal expenses to apply for bail for her husband, there is no proper medical evidence on record to prove with certainty that the deceased consumed poison and died.' The court further said, 'Even though the doctor, who has held autopsy over dead body of the deceased, initially opined in the postmortem certificate that cause of her death is shock due to cardio-respiratory failure… in his examination in the Court, he (the doctor) stated that the said failure of lung and heart is due to poison but he clearly stated in his evidence that since viscera is not examined, he is not certain whether failure of lung and heart is due to poison or not.' The court also said that the IPC section dealing with dowry death requires 'harassment meted out to women within seven years of marriage in connection with dowry' as defined in the specific Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court said, 'A perusal of the definition of 'dowry', makes it manifest that it must be a demand made in connection with money or any valuable security in connection with marriage either before marriage, at the time of marriage or after the marriage.' The court said, 'Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that any demand for dowry or any valuable security or other property was made by the accused in connection with marriage by the accused. The admitted case of the prosecution is that they only demanded to arrange for money i.e. Rs.50,000/- to meet the legal expenses for the purpose of applying bail to the husband and father-in-law, who were in judicial custody.' The court said, 'Strictly speaking, in our considered view, it does not come within the meaning of 'dowry' as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, for the purpose of proving a case under Section 304(B) of IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused to meet an illegal demand for dowry and unable to bear said demand that she has committed suicide or met with an unnatural death in connection with said demand.' According to the prosecution's case, the deceased got married to her husband in January 2011 and 'both of them led a happy marital life' until a criminal case was registered against her husband, father-in-law and her brother-in-law, in an alleged fabrication of document pertaining to a land transaction with a third party in July 2011. The prosecution's case was that while her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law were in judicial custody, following their arrest in July 2011, the father-in-law of the deceased directed two other accused in the case — the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased – 'to insist (with) the deceased to arrange for Rs 50,000/- from her father to meet the legal expenses for obtaining bail for (the father-in-law) in the said criminal case…' To be sure, the husband had not been booked in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased woman in Savarkundla police station. The prosecution said while the woman's father 'had arranged Rs 10,000, the accused were not satisfied with the same and insisted the deceased to arrange for the remaining sum of Rs 40,000 … When she could not arrange for the same, and was unable to bear the harassment… it is stated that she has taken poison and committed suicide on August 29, 2011.' The case was registered against the family of the deceased's husband and a chargesheet was filed under Indian Penal Code Sections (IPC) 306 (abetment of suicide), 304(B) (dowry death), 498(A) (cruelty by husband or his relatives against a woman), and 114 (crime committed in presence of abettor). At the end of the trial in 2013, the Sessions Court had acquitted the accused on the ground that 'the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused'. The acquittal was challenged by the state.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Orissa HC: Woman contractual employee cannot be denied maternity leave, benefits
Bhubaneswar: The Orissa High Court has ruled that a woman contractual employee cannot be denied maternity leave and its associated benefits, emphasising that denying such benefits based on the nature of employment is 'abhorrent to the notions of humanity and womanhood.' The court was hearing a case concerning Anindita Mishra, who was recruited on a contractual basis by the state government in May 2014. (Unsplash/ Representative photo) The court was hearing a case concerning Anindita Mishra, who was recruited on a contractual basis by the state government in May 2014. She had applied for six months of maternity leave after giving birth to a baby girl in August 2016. Despite submitting the necessary medical certificates, the state government rejected her request, stating that maternity benefits were not applicable to contractual employees. A division bench comprising Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed, 'Because of various reasons, including poverty & illiteracy, women come out of their home and gain entry to the employment, be it public, private, contractual or otherwise, as a source of livelihood. State cannot provide public employment to everyone. It could have been ideal, if it could provide. Naturally, employment in the private sector looms large. Our Smrutikaaraas chanted 'yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatr devatah', literally meaning that Gods rejoice where women are honoured. Such ideal things should animate the purposive interpretation of state policy concerning the welfare of women.' A single-judge bench had ruled in her favour in 2022, holding that she was unjustly denied the benefit and directing the state government to grant her maternity leave. However, the state government filed an appeal before a larger bench. Upholding the earlier order, the division bench of the Orissa High Court affirmed that the appellant authorities are obligated to grant maternity leave to the respondent. 'A welfare state cannot be heard to say that a policy of the kind has to be kept away regardless of its socio-welfare object to serve all classes of persons employed in the State, whatever be the nature of such engagement,' the court said. The HC cited provisions under Article 10(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which focuses on special protection and assistance that should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. 'The idea of maternity leave is structured on 'zero separation' between lactating mother and breast feeding baby... A lactating mother has a fundamental right to breastfeed her baby during its formative years. Similarly, a baby has a fundamental right to be breastfed and brought about in a reasonably good condition,' the bench said.
