The Bombay High Court dismissed a taxi drivers’ association plea seeking restoration of a prayer shed near Mumbai’s domestic airport for Ramzan. The Court held that airport security concerns cannot be compromised and refused to direct authorities to allot space for namaz.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by a taxi drivers’ association seeking temporary space at Mumbai’s domestic airport to offer prayers during the holy month of Ramzan.
The petition was filed by the Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Association, which requested the Court to either restore a demolished prayer shed near Terminal 1 of the airport or provide an alternative space measuring around 1,500 square feet so that drivers could offer namaz during Ramzan.
However, the State government opposed the request and raised security concerns regarding any prayer facility within the airport premises.
A Division Bench comprising Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice FP Pooniwalla refused to grant the relief sought by the association. The Court emphasised that security considerations must take priority in sensitive areas like airports.
“When there is a security risk, security comes first; irrespective of religion. When it comes to security, we will not compromise one bit,”
the bench orally remarked.
While declining the request, the Court allowed the association to approach the Airports Authority of India to explore the possibility of allotting space at the redeveloped airport facility in the future.
The association informed the Court that a temporary prayer shed had existed for nearly three decades near Terminal 1 of Mumbai’s domestic airport. According to the petitioners, the shed was demolished in April 2025 by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.
Following the demolition, the association approached the High Court in February 2026 seeking directions to restore the shed or to provide an alternative location within the airport premises where drivers could offer prayers during Ramzan.
Advocate SB Talekar, representing one of the petitioners, argued before the Court that a temple had recently been constructed in the same area and that security concerns were raised only after a complaint from a third party.
However, the bench rejected this argument and clarified that claims of parity cannot override security concerns.
“Even if we assume there is a temple, two rights do not make a wrong. If someone comes to us saying that structure is illegal, we will order them to demolish that structure also,”
the Court said.
During earlier hearings in the case, the bench had directed the State authorities to explore the possibility of identifying alternative locations for prayer near the airport.
Following the Court’s direction, the government conducted a security survey of seven possible sites around the airport area. However, the State later informed the Court that all the locations were unsuitable due to security risks and lack of space because of ongoing development works at the terminal.
The State also pointed out that there were existing mosques located close to the airport which the drivers could use for offering prayers.
Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan submitted before the Court that the domestic terminal is a high-security and high-footfall zone where VVIP movements frequently take place. She argued that unauthorised structures cannot be permitted in such a sensitive location.
Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, appearing for Mumbai International Airport Limited, also informed the Court that the demolished shed was located near a VIP entrance gate, which posed a potential security threat.
On the other hand, Advocate Shahzad Naqvi, appearing for the association, argued that the prayer shed had existed for around thirty years without any security incident being reported.
He further submitted that the space for prayers had originally been identified by the authorities themselves and that the demolition had caused serious inconvenience to drivers, particularly during the month of Ramzan when prayer timings are more frequent.
Naqvi also told the Court that after the demolition, drivers faced difficulty in finding a nearby place to offer prayers during their working hours.
Responding to this, Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan informed the bench that there were at least three functioning mosques located within walking distance from the parking area where drivers usually wait for passengers.
Senior counsel Vikram Nankani reiterated that the earlier prayer shed was situated very close to the VIP entrance gate and therefore created security concerns.
Although the Court acknowledged that the drivers might face inconvenience due to the absence of a prayer facility near the airport, it stated that security assessments cannot be ignored.
“Even if there is no mosque for the sake of argument, they can’t have something like this at the airport. We have not seen this anywhere else. You cannot say you want to carry out your prayer here only. The report says there is no space available for you over there,”
the bench remarked.
The Court further noted that the security report prepared by the authorities had found all seven suggested alternative sites unsuitable.
In light of this report, the bench said it was not in a position to direct the authorities to allot any space within the airport premises, even for a temporary period during Ramzan.
“Once we are faced with this report, we are unable to direct the respondents to allot any space to the petitioner association, even for a temporary period to undertake namaz during the month of Ramazan. Looking at the totality, we find that we are unable to give any relief to the petition. It is accordingly dismissed,”
the Court held.
At the same time, the Court left the possibility open for future arrangements at the redeveloped airport.
The bench permitted the association to approach both Mumbai International Airport Limited and the Airports Authority of India to seek space at the redeveloped facility. The Court clarified that any such decision would depend on security assessments and development requirements.
While discussing the matter during the hearing, the bench also acknowledged the role played by the drivers who serve passengers arriving at the airport.
“These (the drivers) are the people who service the passengers who come from the airport. Offering prayers is something that is an integral part of their religion,”
the Court orally observed.
Case Title:
Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Association v. Adani Airport Ltd & Ors.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Namaz Space
