How Is Offering Prayers A Threat? Karnataka High Court Quashes PIL Challenging Use Of Residential Premises As Prayer Hall

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by residents of HBR Layout in Bengaluru, who opposed the use of a residential property as a prayer hall.

During the hearing, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal took strong exception to the oral submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that 'offering prayers was a risk'. 

“We will not accept this. Offering a prayer is not a risk. Mr Counsel, you probably made this statement under an erroneous impression, please think twice before making a statement. We are not permitting such statements. This is something to which we have strong objections, you can’t make a statement so casually. You are a lawyer, please don't make such statements, this is not done. You have no right to make such sweeping statements. One can only say that there is some violation of rules, please ask the authorities. How can you say someone offering prayer is a threatening activity?”

As such, opining that the petition was filed on wholly erroneous impressions and assumptions of the petitioner, the PIL was dismissed.

The petitioners had approached the Court claiming a breach of provisions as a residential area was being utilised as a prayer hall, sometimes resulting in a significant gathering of people and causing disturbance to the residents.

Upon reviewing the records, the court found that in a previous round of litigation, it was acknowledged that the respondent trust had constructed a building on the scheduled property for running a madrasa to educate underprivileged children and conduct prayers. The trust had not received permission to construct the building from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The court had permitted the trust to proceed with construction based on approved plans.

The court took into account the objections filed by the trust in the earlier petition, wherein it was mentioned that due to a shortage of space, the existing building was demolished to put up a new building to help people doing regular prayers, because of an increase in population in the surrounding area. The plan for sanction and approval was submitted to BBMP.

Referring to the earlier court order where the court permitted the trust to approach BBMP with building plans and if the plan is approved or sanctioned trust was further permitted to construct as per the sanctioned plan.

The court said, “What emerges from material that pursuant to approval granted by BBMP new building was constructed and right from the beginning the usage of the building was for specified object—namely a residential school, madarsa for poor and needy students in the said area and hall being used as a prayer hall."

The court noted that there was no specific prohibition or legal basis presented by the petitioners to prevent the use of a residential area for offering prayers, either by the occupants or their guests. Despite repeated queries, the petitioners' counsel failed to demonstrate any such legal prohibition.

“Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any such specific prohibition and repeated his submission that using the residential area for offering prayer as a masjid is violation of the rules. Further repeatedly submitted that as there may be a large gathering of people, the petitioners and residents apprehend a disturbance...These submissions neither stand reasons, logic or law. At the cost of repetition, we say that in spite of our repeated queries the counsel was unable to show any such prohibition, prevention in the rules or law, prohibiting an occupant to utilise the residential place for offering prayer.”

It also added that there was no restriction on the number of guests either. In fact, in the earlier round, the petitioner himself had submitted before this court that initially permission was granted to trust for running a madrasa i.e. a school for poor and needy persons and to offer prayers as well.

Following this, the bench held that the apprehension of disturbance was based on assumptions and presumptions. It highlighted that there were no reported instances of unruly behaviour by those offering prayers.

“Considering all these facts, the only apprehension being submitted is of an assumed and presumed disturbance being caused to the petitioner and other residents, by somebody offering prayers in his own residence. In this case particularly, if the premises is used as a residential school then the student attending the school and the guest if any offering the prayers, in the premises where the permission is granted by respondent authority.”

As such, the PIL was found devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Sam P Philip & Others v State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 8389/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

Date of Order: 24-08-2023

Appearance: Advocate L. Srinivasa Babu for Petitioners.