The Kerala High Court ruled that a religious place cannot be blocked solely because of opposition from another community. This decision came while the court overturned a ruling that had denied permission to establish a Muslim prayer hall. The court emphasized the importance of upholding religious freedom and access.
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court asserted that in a democracy like India, individuals have the right to practice their faith, and the establishment of a religious site cannot be obstructed solely based on opposition from another group.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP emphasized that religious freedom is a fundamental aspect of India’s secular Constitution, stating,
“Opposition from one community cannot justify curbing the rights of another in the absence of evidence of communal disharmony.”
Read Also: “Shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ Inside Mosque Does Not Hurt Religious Feelings Of Any Class”: HC
The court’s decision annulled a denial of permission for a Muslim prayer hall, clarifying that,
“Merely because one community opposes the setting up of a religious place by another community, it cannot be assumed that there will be disharmony or breach of peace.”
The court further noted that objections from a small number of individuals from different faiths do not constitute a valid reason to restrict the religious rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The case before the Court involved a dispute regarding a property owned by KT Mujeeb, who had been using it as a prayer hall since 2004. In 2014, he received a permit to replace the roof. However, local residents alleged that the property was being converted into a mosque, prompting the panchayat to issue a notice for unauthorized construction and instruct Mujeeb to stop religious activities.
This situation escalated, leading the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to order the closure of the prayer hall due to concerns about communal harmony. In response, Mujeeb sought the Court’s intervention, which granted an interim order permitting limited use of the property as a prayer hall under specific conditions.
Mujeeb subsequently applied to the District Collector for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to continue using the property for religious purposes, but his request was denied. He then returned to the Court, seeking to quash the earlier orders, arguing that they infringed upon his fundamental right to practice his religion.
Local authorities opposed Mujeeb’s petition, contending that the building lacked the necessary approvals and that its use for religious activities might disrupt community harmony, particularly due to concerns about its conversion into a mosque.
However, the Court rejected these arguments, criticizing the authorities for their failure to distinguish between “public order” and “law and order” in their opposition to the petitioner’s plea for religious activities.
The Court noted that public order relates to collective societal harmony, while law and order pertains to individual disputes or conflicts over tangible interests.
The Court stated,
“The State’s emphasis on public order aims to maintain communal harmony, while issues of law and order typically concern the interests of the involved parties. Objections from a small number of individuals of different faiths cannot be a legitimate basis for restricting rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution,”
The Court further remarked that the existence of other mosques nearby did not constitute a valid reason to deny the petitioner’s application.
It added,
“Conflicts between different faiths can threaten public order and undermine the secular fabric of our nation. It is essential for the State to strike a careful balance between protecting religious freedom and upholding the principles of secularism when formulating guidelines in such cases,”
Read Also: UP Religious Conversion Cases| Supreme Court Sets May for Final Hearing
The Court then quashed the orders against the petitioner and instructed the District Collector to re-evaluate his application.
The petitioner represented by Senior Counsel S. Sreekumar, along with advocates P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, R. Githesh, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, and Harikrishnan S.
Government Pleader Devishri R. represented the State, while the Pollution Control Board was represented by its standing counsel T. Naveen. Senior Counsel T. Sethumadhavan appeared for another private respondent, and the Panchayat represented by its standing counsel Vinod Singh Cheriyan.