The Kerala High Court overturned the order to block the Muslim prayer hall

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court recently overturned a decision that had denied permission to set up a Muslim prayer hall in the state, saying that the opposition of one community cannot violate the rights of another in a democratic society.

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

“In a democratic state where citizens have a fundamental right to practice and profess their faith, the establishment of religious places by any community should not be limited only because of the opposition of other groups,” the judge said.

He further noted that opposition by an individual community cannot be said to lead to communal disharmony or breach of peace unless there is concrete evidence to support such claims. The case under consideration concerned K. T. Mujib, the petitioner, who had been using the property for prayers since 2004.

In 2014, Mujeeb applied for permission to replace the roof of the building, which was previously used as a prayer hall. However, local residents objected, claiming that the building had been converted into a mosque. In response, the local panchayat issued an unauthorized construction notice and ordered Mujib to stop religious activities in the area.

The matter came to a head when the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) ordered the closure of the prayer hall citing communal harmony concerns. Mujib then approached the High Court, which granted an interim order allowing limited use of the property as a prayer hall subject to certain conditions.

Mujeeb subsequently applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Collector to continue using the property for religious purposes, but his application was rejected. In response, he filed another petition in the High Court challenging the orders and contending that they violated his fundamental right to practice religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Local authorities opposed the petition, arguing that the building does not have the proper permits and that its use for religious purposes could disrupt community harmony, especially given concerns about the property potentially being converted into a mosque.

However, the Court rejected these arguments, criticizing the authorities for confusing “public order” with “law and order”. Justice Nias explained that public order is about collective social harmony, while questions of law and order are about individual disputes over material interests.

The court also emphasized that the objections raised by several persons from other faiths cannot justify the restriction of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The court also rejected the argument that the proximity of other mosques in the area could be a good reason to reject Mujib’s application.

Judge Nias stated that such reasoning was not relevant to the case at hand, stressing that the applicant’s right to freedom of religion should not be limited by the existence of similar religious structures nearby.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the orders issued by the local authorities and directed the District Collector to re-examine Mujeeb’s application for permission to use the property as a prayer hall.