The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the role of the State Pollution Control Board in addressing the menace of noise pollution. During the hearing of a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered in 2021, the court noted that mere data collection and publication on web portals are insufficient unless the data is communicated to relevant departments for actionable results.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla heard the matter, where the petitioner’s side was represented by the learned Amicus and counsels Akanksha Dubey and Gaurav Mehrotra. The State and respondents were represented by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) and A K Verma. The Court directed various state and central authorities to explore technological solutions like noise cameras and to regulate the manufacture and sale of prohibited equipment such as modified silencers, pressure horns, and hooters.
Background
The proceedings were initiated Suo Motu in 2021 following a reference by a learned Single Judge of the High Court regarding noise pollution caused by modified silencers. The case has been ongoing since then, focusing on the public interest in curbing the increasing noise menace. On April 2, 2026, the court examined compliance affidavits filed by the State and the Pollution Control Board (the Board).
Arguments and Observations
Ineffectiveness of the Pollution Control Board
The court interacted with Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Member Secretary of the Board, regarding the data collected on noise pollution. While the Board claimed data is published on its portal, the court questioned its utility:
“The question is who takes cognizance of this data and what further action, if any, is taken by any other stakeholder who may have a role to play in curbing the menace of noise pollution. Merely putting it up on the web portal may not be of any use if, nobody else… is taking cognizance of it.”
The court further noted that under Rule 4(3), the Board is duty-bound to devise measures for the prevention and abatement of noise pollution, but found no such measures mentioned in the Board’s affidavit.
Regulation of Manufacture and Sale of Equipment
A significant issue arose regarding the enforcement powers of the Transport Department. Ms. Kinjal Singh, Transport Commissioner, informed the court that while officials check for modified silencers and hooters in garages, they lack the power to check the sale of such equipment at shops.
The court pointed to Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prohibits vehicle alterations that vary from the original manufacturer specifications. The Bench observed:
“We did not get any answer as to which department will prevent the manufacturing of such equipments and what mechanism is in place as of now to prevent such manufacture and sale.”
Technological Interventions and Enforcement
The court observed that manpower in Lucknow (three Enforcement Officers and three interceptors) is inadequate for the entire city. It suggested pressing technology into service, specifically the use of “noise cameras” or “acoustic cameras/noise radars” as suggested by the learned Amicus. The Director General of Police (DGP), Shri Rajeev Krishna, noted that such items are now available online through e-commerce, which handicaps local police. Consequently, the court impleaded the Union of India through the Department of Commerce and Industry and the Department of Transport to address online sales.
Court’s Analysis and Directions
The court criticized the “academic exercise” of data collection and demanded a “better affidavit” from the Board that identifies causes and suggests measures. It also noted the failure of the Board’s complaint portal and helpline icon.
Regarding enforcement data, the court found the existing measures inadequate:
“For example, for the entire last year, only twenty five challans took place in the entire State of U.P. for use of modified silencers.”
The Bench emphasized that repeat offenders should face suspension or cancellation of driving licenses and vehicle registrations. However, it cautioned:
“In the garb of such exercise, unnecessary harassment should not be caused to vehicle owners… but efforts should be made that they are made aware of the problem and are sensitized.”
Decision and Order
The Court passed the following directions:
- Impleadment: The Additional Chief Secretary (Nagar Vikas Department) and the Union of India (Commerce and Transport Departments) were impleaded as parties.
- Helplines: All departments must re-visit and ensure the functionality of noise pollution helpline numbers.
- Awareness: The Transport Commissioner is to convene meetings with garage owners and workshops to persuade them against fitting prohibited equipment.
- Better Affidavits: The Principal Secretary (Transport), the Board, and the Police Department were directed to file detailed affidavits on mechanisms developed to prevent noise pollution.
- Committee Action: The Committee constituted on February 11, 2022, must explore the feasibility of noise cameras and other effective measures.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on May 20, 2026, where top officials, including the Principal Secretary (Transport) and Member Secretary (PCB), are required to join via video conferencing.
Case Details Block
- Case Title: Noise Pollution Thru Modified Silencers Suo Moto Versus State Of U.P. And Ors.
- Case No.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No.15385 of 2021
- Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
- Date: April 2, 2026
