Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Against Mobile Towers | Holds No Proven Health Hazards From Radiations | Permissions Governed by Telecommunications Act 2023 and Right of Way Rules 2024
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that sought directions for removal of telecommunication towers alleged to have been illegally erected in residential areas and posing health hazards to citizens. The Bench concluded that the issue of mobile tower radiation causing health hazards has already been conclusively settled in earlier judicial pronouncements, and that the current statutory framework governing telecommunication infrastructure does not require permissions from local authorities in the manner envisaged by the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petition was accordingly dismissed without costs.
The petition was initiated as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking removal of telecommunication towers erected near and on the premises of some of the petitioners. The petitioners included individuals claiming adverse health impacts and loss of family members allegedly due to electromagnetic radiation from nearby mobile towers, as well as medical professionals and social workers who had studied or published work on the issue. The matter was subsequently converted into a Public Interest Litigation as it raised issues beyond the personal rights of the individual petitioners.
The petition named multiple local authorities and regulatory bodies as respondents, including Pune Municipal Corporation, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (PCNTDA), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, the State Government, and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The Tower and Infrastructure Providers Association (TAIPA) was also impleaded as a respondent.
The petitioners contended that radiations emanating from mobile towers erected in densely populated residential areas amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They alleged instances of cancer, high blood pressure, asthma, insomnia, and other ailments among themselves and their families, attributing these directly to radiation from nearby towers. Specific allegations were made regarding telecommunication towers installed adjacent to the residences of individual petitioners, with claims that family members had succumbed to cancer or developed serious health issues.
The petitioners also relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which they claimed revealed illegal erection of towers in PCNTDA areas. They asserted that there were substantial outstanding property tax dues from such towers amounting to approximately Rs. 650 crores. Further, the petitioners sought enforcement of DoT guidelines of 1 August 2013 for constitution of State, District, and Local-level Grievance Redressal Committees, and for public hearings to be conducted prior to erection of towers.
Their prayers included removal of towers erected without permission, directions for recovery of property tax dues, and adherence to DoT guidelines. They placed reliance on judgments such as Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) v. Union of India decided by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court order in Bhupesh Sehgal v. Delhi Development Authority, asserting that courts had previously intervened in cases of harmful tower radiations.
On the other hand, the respondents opposed the petition. Counsel for TAIPA argued that there was no conclusive scientific evidence that telecommunication towers had adverse impacts on health. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra, as well as decisions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Vijay Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and subsequent Bombay High Court judgments in Indus Towers Limited matters, which had consistently rejected claims of health hazards from tower radiation.
It was contended that telecommunication towers were governed by DoT guidelines, the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, and subsequent regulatory frameworks, including the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024. These provisions allowed erection of towers on private properties with intimation to local authorities and submission of structural safety certification, without requiring development permission under the MRTP Act. The respondents stated that mobile services were treated as essential services, crucial for national connectivity and economic growth.
The State Government, through its counsel, also pointed out that Government Resolutions and circulars had been issued in 2025 aligning state practices with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Right of Way Rules, 2024.
The Bench carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the legal framework. It noted that the petition initially contained specific prayers for removal of towers near individual residences, which pertained to private rights. However, given that wider issues were raised, the matter had been converted into a Public Interest Litigation.
Addressing the first grievance relating to health hazards, the Court recorded that the matter was no longer res integra. Referring to its earlier Division Bench judgment in Biju K. Balan, the Court observed: “The scientific material, as of today, does not indicate any identifiable risk of serious harm on account of non-ionized radiation emanating from TCS/BS and Equipments for Telecommunication Network. Thus, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of apprehensions which are not rooted in the facts and supported by reliable scientific material.”
The Court also recorded observations from the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Vijay Verma, which had concluded that “as of now there is no cause of alarm with regard to the possible ill-effect on human health by electromagnetic Field (EMF radiation) from mobile phone towers and mobile phones because the limits adopted in India cannot have any biological effect on human.”
It referred to subsequent judgements such as Indus Towers Limited v. Gram Panchayat Tanang, where the Court had recorded: “In order to facilitate seamless communication throughout the country and to ensure that citizens of the remote areas are not deprived of revolution in technology which manifest itself in the form of mobile phones, mobile towers cannot be summarily dispensed with on misplaced information.”
The Bench noted that the petitioners had failed to place before it any independent or conclusive material that could justify a departure from this consistent judicial view.
Turning to the second grievance regarding installation of towers without permission, the Court recorded the detailed statutory framework beginning from DoT’s 2013 guidelines, the State’s 2014 Regulations, the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, and subsequent amendments culminating in the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Right of Way Rules, 2024. Under these, permission from local authorities was not required for towers on private properties; an intimation along with structural safety certification sufficed.
The Court referred to Section 14(3) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which provides: “The telecommunication network installed on any property, shall not be considered as part of such property, including for the purposes of any transaction related to that property, or any property tax, levy, cess, fees or duties as may be applicable on that property.”
The Bench noted that Government Resolutions and circulars issued by the State of Maharashtra in 2025 had directed municipal bodies to strictly follow the provisions of the Act and Rules. In light of this framework, the Court stated: “We are not inclined to grant the relief of removal of any telecommunication tower site complained of by the Petitioners.”
Concluding its analysis, the Division Bench dismissed the Public Interest Litigation. The Court clearly stated: “We are not inclined to grant the relief of removal of any telecommunication tower site complained of by the Petitioners.” It further recorded: “The PIL petition is accordingly dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Shriya Awale, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh with Mr. Yatin Malvankar, Mr. Irvin D’souza, Mr. Aniket Kanawade & Mr. Vaibhav Thorve; Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP; Mr. Deepak R. More with Mr. Shivram A. Gawade; Ms. A.R.S. Baxi; Mr. Akshay Naidu with Ms. Nidhi Chauhan i/b Mr. Vishwanath Patil.
Case Title: Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:36592-DB
Case Number: PIL No. 91 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
