'Establishes Of Religious Place Cannot Be Curtailed': Kerala High Court Quashes Order Blocking Muslim Prayer Hall

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court recently set aside a decision that had denied permission for the establishment of a Muslim prayer hall in the state, arguing that opposition from one community cannot infringe upon the rights of another in a democratic society.

The Court's judgment emphasised the constitutional right to profess and practice religion, stressing that mere objections from a few individuals or groups cannot be grounds to restrict such rights. Justice Mohammed Nias CP, in his ruling, remarked that religious freedom is a fundamental aspect of India’s secular Constitution.

"In a democratic nation where citizens possess the fundamental right to practice and profess their faith, the establishment of a religious place by any community should not be curtailed merely due to opposition from other groups," the judge stated.

He further noted that opposition from a single community cannot be assumed to lead to communal disharmony or a breach of peace unless there is concrete evidence to support such claims. The case at hand concerned KT Mujeeb, the petitioner, who had been using a property for prayer purposes since 2004.

In 2014, Mujeeb sought permission to replace the roof of the building, which had previously been used as a prayer hall. However, local residents raised objections, claiming the building was being converted into a mosque. In response, the local panchayat issued a notice alleging unauthorized construction and directed Mujeeb to cease religious activities on the premises.

The matter escalated when the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) ordered the closure of the prayer hall, citing concerns over communal harmony. Mujeeb then approached the High Court, which issued an interim order allowing limited use of the property as a prayer hall under certain conditions.

The local authorities opposed the petition, asserting that the building lacked proper approvals and that its use for religious purposes could disrupt community harmony, especially given the concerns about the property potentially being converted into a mosque.

However, the Court rejected these arguments, criticising the authorities for conflating "public order" with "law and order." Justice Nias clarified that public order pertains to collective societal harmony, while law and order issues relate to individual disputes over tangible interests.

The Court further emphasised that objections raised by a few individuals from other faiths cannot justify the restriction of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument that the proximity of other mosques in the area could be a valid reason to deny Mujeeb’s application.

Justice Nias stated that such a consideration was not relevant to the case at hand, highlighting that the petitioner’s right to religious freedom should not be curtailed based on the existence of similar religious structures in the vicinity.

In light of these findings, the High Court quashed the orders issued by the local authorities and directed the District Collector to reconsider Mujeeb’s application for permission to use the property as a prayer hall.