The Kerala High Court has emphasized that religious establishments cannot be obstructed solely due to opposition from another community, reaffirming the secular and democratic principles enshrined in India’s Constitution.
This ruling came as the Court quashed a series of orders denying permission for the operation of a Muslim prayer hall owned by KT Mujeeb. Justice Mohammed Nias CP, delivering the judgment, underlined the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and criticized attempts to stifle these rights without evidence of communal unrest.
“Opposition from one group does not automatically translate into communal disharmony. A democratic nation must uphold its citizens’ right to practice and profess their faith without undue interference,” observed the Court.
Case Background
The case revolved around a property used as a prayer hall since 2004. Mujeeb sought permission to replace its roof in 2014, prompting allegations from local residents that the property was being converted into a mosque. In response, the local panchayat issued notices halting religious activities, followed by an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to close the prayer hall, citing potential threats to communal harmony.
Despite an interim court order allowing limited religious use of the property, Mujeeb’s subsequent application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was denied.
Court’s Observations
The Court criticized local authorities for conflating concerns about “law and order” with broader issues of “public order,” which pertain to communal harmony. It stated that objections raised by a small group cannot override constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26.
“Conflicts among faiths can threaten public order, but mere proximity of other mosques or opposition cannot justify restricting religious rights. The State must balance religious freedoms with the secular ethos of the nation,” the Court added.
The orders against the petitioner were set aside, and the District Collector was directed to reconsider the NOC application.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of protecting religious freedoms while ensuring societal harmony. It reiterates that in a secular democracy, one community’s opposition cannot be grounds to suppress another’s right to practice their faith.
