The Bombay High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking removal of mobile towers, citing that health concerns over mobile towers are scientifically baseless.
“Scientific material, as of today, does not indicate any identifiable risk of serious harm on account of non-ionized radiation” – In a significant reaffirmation of settled legal and scientific positions, the Bombay High Court on 26 August 2025 dismissed a public interest litigation, challenging the erection of telecommunication towers in residential areas of Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad. The petition alleged severe health hazards, including cancer and hypertension, from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by mobile towers, and sought their removal on constitutional and planning grounds.
Pronouncing judgment in Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne decisively ruled that such fears are “not rooted in facts and supported by reliable scientific material”, and hence not sufficient to interfere with the operation of legally regulated telecom infrastructure.
Here’s a breakdown of the court’s ruling :
No Scientific Evidence: The court observed that there’s no scientific material or data to support claims that radiation from mobile towers is harmful to human health or causes cancer.
Burden of Proof: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming harm from mobile tower radiation to establish its soundness.
Role of Gram Panchayat: The court clarified that the Gram Panchayat’s role is limited to issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for mobile tower installations, and once an NOC is issued, they lose control over the matter.
Previous Rulings: The court relied on previous judgments, such as Indus Towers Ltd. v. Grampanchayat Tanang And Vijay Verma v. State of H.P., which held that there’s no conclusive evidence linking mobile tower radiation to adverse health effects.
The court’s decision highlights the need for scientific evidence to support claims of harm from mobile towers, rather than relying on apprehensions or unsubstantiated fears. This ruling supports the installation of mobile towers, emphasizing their importance in enabling seamless communication, especially in rural areas.
