No Fundamental Right To Prayer Room At Public Places: Gauhati High Court Junks PIL Seeking Prayer Room At Airports

The Gauhati High Court on Thursday dismissed the PIL which sought direction for setting up a dedicated prayer room in the precincts of the Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati, on the ground that no fundamental right of the petitioner is being breached by not providing a separate prayer room at the said airport.

The division bench of the Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kardak Ete observed:

“We are of the firm view that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India give freedom to people from a particular denomination to profess a particular religion and to acquire movable and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with law. However, such rights cannot be stretched to the extent that such denomination can demand setting up of a dedicated prayer facility in a public place like an airport.”

On September 29, while refusing to issue notice to the respondents, the division bench of Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund asked the petitioner:

“What is the fundamental right in this regard?...Our Country is a secular country? Why prayer room for a particular community?....PIL can be filed for enforcing a fundamental right.”

The petitioner argued that passengers belonging to different religions, while travelling through Guwahati Airport, are not having access to any proper prayer room facility which exists in various other airports across the country like Delhi International Airport, Mumbai International Airport, Mangaloroo Airport, Agartala Airport etc.

The petitioner placed reliance upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali and Ors. 1961 AIR 1402 and Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 388 and argued that Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion not merely to the citizens of India but to every person.

It was further argued by the petitioner that the Constitution has guaranteed any religious denomination or section of it, the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage in its own way, all affairs in the matters of religion.

The Court noted that in the judgment of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, the Supreme Court clearly laid down that under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, rights are given to such denominations or a section of it to acquire and own movable and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with law.

The Court further observed that no litigant can be permitted to seek a direction upon the Government to establish a dedicated place for professing religious practices in an airport.

“Thus, by not providing a similar facility at the precincts of Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati, no fundamental right of the petitioner is being breached,” the Court said.

The Court noted that it is in the domain of the Government or the Airport Authority of India to take a decision whether particular kind of facilities are required to facilitate the people accessing the airport, more so, when the plea is for a religious facility.

“The High Court, while exercising the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be asked to interfere with any such policy decisions of the Government,” it said.

Thus, the Court dismissed the PIL as being devoid of merit.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 94

Case Name: Rana Saidur Zaman v. The Union of India & 5 Ors.

Case No.: PIL/64/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order