In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court recently overturned a decision refusing permission to establish a Muslim prayer hall in the state, arguing that opposition from one community cannot infringe on the rights of a other in a democratic society.

The Court’s judgment focused on the constitutional right to profess and practice religion, emphasizing that mere objections from a few individuals or groups cannot constitute grounds for restricting these rights. Justice Mohammed Nias CP, in his ruling, observed that religious freedom is a fundamental aspect of the secular Constitution of India.

“In a democratic nation where citizens possess the fundamental right to practice and profess their faith, the establishment of a religious place by a community should not be restricted simply because of opposition from other groups,” said the judge.

He further noted that the opposition of a single community cannot be said to lead to communal disagreement or breach of the peace unless there is concrete evidence to support these claims. The case in question concerned KT Mujeeb, the petitioner, who had been using a property for prayer purposes since 2004.

In 2014, Mujeeb applied for permission to replace the roof of the building, which previously served as a prayer hall. However, local residents raised objections, claiming that the building was being transformed into a mosque. In response, the local panchayat issued a notice alleging unauthorized construction and ordered Mujeeb to cease his religious activities on the premises.

The matter worsened when the Revenue Director (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.

Subsequently, Mujeeb 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 arguing that they violated his fundamental right to practice religion as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Local authorities opposed the petition, saying the building did not have the necessary permissions and its use for religious purposes could disrupt community harmony, particularly given concerns about the possibility of the property being turned into a mosque.

However, the Court rejected these arguments, criticizing the authorities for confusing “public order” with “public order”. Justice Nias clarified that public order concerns collective societal harmony, while questions of public order concern individual disputes over tangible interests.

The Court further emphasized that the objections raised by a few individuals belonging to other faiths cannot justify the restriction of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the proximity of other mosques in the area could be a valid reason to reject Mujeeb’s application.

Justice Nias said such a consideration was not relevant in the present case, emphasizing that the petitioner’s right to religious freedom should not be restricted due to the existence of similar religious structures in the neighborhood.

In light of these findings, the High Court set aside 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.