The Bombay High Court,on August 26, 2025 in a judgment delivered by a Division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, dismissed a PIL filed by the Petitioners alleging that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from mobile towers in Pune, Pimpri Chinchwad and PCNTDA caused severe health hazards. Petitioners claimed that family members living near towers had suffered cancer, high blood pressure, asthma, migraine, and even premature deaths, linking these illnesses directly to tower radiation. They also alleged that hundreds of towers were illegally erected without permissions from local bodies, resulting in property tax dues of about ?650 crores. The PIL sought removal of such towers, creation of grievance redressal committees as per DoT guidelines of 2013, and mandatory public hearings before new tower installations.
The Court held that the health hazard issue was no longer res integra, having already been settled by earlier rulings including Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra[1]and Vijay Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh[2], which concluded there was no conclusive scientific evidence of adverse health impact from EMR. India already follows stricter standards (1/10th of ICNIRP international norms), and WHO advisories confirm there is no proven link between mobile tower radiation and cancer. The Petitioners’ fears were therefore found to be unfounded.On the legality of towers, the Bench held that the Telecom Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 now regulate the installation, operation and maintenance of towers. Under these provisions, development permission under the MRTP Act is not required, and installation can be done with mere intimation to the local authority along with structural safety certification. The Court also noted that Section 14(3) of the Telecom Act excludes telecom networks from property tax and related levies, rendering the prayer for recovery of tax dues untenable.
The Court declined to order removal of towers or accept the Petitioners’ health hazard claims, holding that mobile towers are essential services for connectivity and cannot be dismantled on mere apprehensions. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed. No order as to costs was passed.
Citations-
Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra- (2019) 5 Mah LJ 436
Vijay Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh- (2015) SCC OnLine HP 2722
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Adv Ms. Shriya Awale
For the Respondents: Advs. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh with Mr. Yatin Malvankar, Mr. Irvin D’souza, Mr. Aniket Kanawade & Mr. Vaibhav Thorve for R-6 (TAIPA); Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, AGP with Ms. R. A. Salunkhe for State of Maharashtra; Mr. Deepak R. More with Mr. Shivram A. Gawade for R-4; Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for R-5; Mr. Akshay Naidu with Ms. Nidhi Chauhan i/b Mr. Vishwanath Patil for R-7 (PMC).
[1] The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that the issue of alleged health hazards from mobile towers has already been conclusively decided in Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra, where no conclusive scientific evidence was found.
[2] It was held that there is no cause for possible ill-effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from mobile phone towers or handsets, as India’s radiation limits are set much lower than internationally adopted ICNIRP recommendations and cannot have any biological effect on humans.
