In a democracy like India where people have a right to profess their faith, the establishment of a religious place cannot be hindered citing opposition by another group, the Kerala High Court recently observed [KT Mujeeb v State of Kerala & ors].
Justice Mohammed Nias CP observed that religious freedom is a cornerstone of India’s secular Constitution and emphasized that opposition from one community cannot justify curbing the rights of another in the absence of evidence of communal disharmony.
The Court passed the judgment while setting aside a decision to deny permission for the establishment of a Muslim prayer hall.
"Merely because one community opposes the setting up of a religious place by another community, it cannot be assumed that there will be disharmony or breach of peace ... 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 Court said.
The Court added that objections raised by a handful of individuals from other faiths cannot serve as a valid basis to restrict the religious rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The case before the Court concerned a dispute over a property owned by KT Mujeeb, the petitioner, which was using the same as a prayer hall since 2004. In 2014, he obtained a permit to replace its roof.
However, local residents claimed that it was being converted into a mosque.
This prompted the panchayat to issue notice alleging unauthorized construction and directing Mujeeb to cease religious activities.
The matter escalated and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) later ordered the closure of the prayer hall citing concerns over communal harmony.
Mujeeb then approached the Court, which granted an interim order allowing limited use of the property as a prayer hall under specific conditions.
He then applied to the District Collector seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to continue using the property for religious purposes, but the application was rejected.
The petitioner then approached the Court again to quash the orders, arguing that these orders violated his fundamental right to practice religion.
The local authorities opposed this petition, arguing that the building lacked proper approvals and that its use for religious purposes could disrupt community harmony, especially since there were concerns about the conversion of the property into a mosque.
The Court, however, rejected these arguments and criticised the authorities for failing to differentiate between "public order" and "law and order" when they opposed the petitioner's plea to conduct religious activities.
Public order concerns collective societal harmony, while "law and order" relates to individual disputes or conflicts over tangible interests, the Court observed.
"The State's focus on public order seeks to preserve communal harmony, while law and order issues are often confined to the interests of the parties involved. Objections raised by a handful of individuals from other faiths cannot serve as a valid basis to restrict the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution," the Court said.
The Court added that the proximity of other mosques in the area was not a valid reason to deny the petitioner’s application.
"Conflicts among different faiths can disrupt public order, posing a threat to the secular fabric of our nation. It is imperative for the State machinery to maintain a delicate balance between safeguarding religious freedom and upholding the tenet of secularism when issuing guidelines in such matters," it added.
It proceeded to quash the orders against the petitioner and directed the District Collector to reconsider his application.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Counsel S Sreekumar and advocates P Martin Jose, P Prijith, Thomas P Kuruvilla, R Githesh, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon and Harikrishnan S.
Government Pleader Devishri R appeared for the State.
The Pollution Control Board was represented by its standing counsel T Naveen.
Senior Counsel T Sethumadhavan appeared for another private respondent.
The Panchayat was represented by its standing counsel Vinod Singh Cheriyan.
[Read Judgment]