Public money cannot be spent to secure celebrity endorsements for civic awareness campaigns, the Bombay High Court observed during the hearing on petitions involving noise pollution in Mumbai. [In re: Noise and Environmental Pollution]
A division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale expressed sharp displeasure upon learning that film personalities were demanding commercial appearance fees to assist in festive anti-pollution drives.
The issue arose after additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan informed the bench that authorities had approached celebrities to support the campaign, but they are asking for fees.
Justice Kulkarni took strong exception to the disclosure:
“Don't go to any celebrity who is going to charge you! If celebrities are not conscious about their own city, and they want to come only at fees, we are very sorry! We thought that there are celebrities who have a lot of social interest, sense of belonging to the city, and they would give it back,” the bench said.
The judge highlighted that such personalities frequently participate in police department functions without hesitation.
“If they can come for that celebration, why can't they come here?" the bench asked.
They ruled that the state exchequer must not bear the cost of public service messaging.
The proceedings stem from a suo motu public interest litigation petition initiated by the Court to curb severe noise and air pollution during festive processions across Maharashtra.
By way of an order passed on September 22, the bench ordered a complete ban on bursting firecrackers on public streets and roads during festivities, while prohibiting laser lights and high-intensity beam lights.
Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy drew attention to the lack of dedicated, recorded grievance helplines in the affidavits tendered by the administration.
Advocate Joel Carlos, representing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), submitted that noise complaints would be routed directly through the existing 24/7 disaster helpline 1916.
The bench directed that both the civic body's 1916 and the police's 100 emergency lines must be prominently publicized across print, cinema, and digital media.
The bench expressed serious anxiety regarding the lack of awareness and compliance in Mumbai’s extensive slum settlements, which comprise over half of the city's area.
“We are worried, how do you take it to the slums? Because if 40-50% of the area is slum area, how do you take it to the slum areas?" Justice Kulkarni questioned.
He highlighted that midnight firecracker violations remain rampant in these neighborhoods: “There you require special kind of drive, sensitizing of all these persons who are in the slums. We are nothing against them, but they should follow the law,” he said.
Amicus Curiae Anand Pai cautioned that conventional campaigns face logistical hurdles in dense settlements:
“It would just be impossible for somebody to go into a slum area and educate people... It would be cumbersome." Pai suggested an alternative route, noting, “If people identify with the local leaders in those slums, it would go a long way.”
The court agreed, directing civic authorities to actively involve ward corporators.
The court adjourned the proceedings to November 25, directing the BMC, police, and pollution authorities to coordinate sustained enforcement measures.