The Bombay High Court on Thursday declined to permit Muslim taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers to offer namaz near the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport during the holy month of Ramadan, saying that security concerns at the airport take precedence over all other considerations. The ruling came from a division bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla.
What the Petition Asked For
The petition was filed by the Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Men’s Union, which sought either the restoration of a temporary shed near Terminal 1 that had been demolished in April last year, or the allotment of an alternative space in the nearby area where drivers could offer prayers. The Maharashtra government opposed the demand, citing security concerns at one of India’s busiest airports.
Seven Alternative Sites Surveyed, All Rejected on Security Grounds
The court noted that airport authorities had already surveyed seven alternative sites in the area, all of which were found to be unsuitable due to threat perceptions and because of the proximity to a gate regularly used by VVIPs entering and exiting the airport.
The counsel for one of the petitioners, Satish Talekar, argued that the shed had existed for 30 years without any security incident and alleged that authorities were deliberately preventing Muslim drivers and passengers from offering namaz. The court, however, did not accept this argument.
Court Draws a Clear Line on Religious Rights at Secured Premises
Justice Colabawalla addressed the petitioner directly during the hearing. “No one is stopping you from praying five times a day. You can just walk in some Masjid and offer Namaz there. No one is going to stop you there. But here at airport premises when the authorities are saying that there are threat issues and security issues, we cannot allow you here,” he said.
The bench made clear that while Ramadan is an integral part of Islam, the right to offer prayers at any specific location, including near the airport, does not qualify as a protected religious right under the law.
Court Suggests Future Avenue for Relief
While the court said it could not grant any relief to the petitioners at this stage, it did leave open a future possibility. The bench suggested that the petitioners could approach the airport authorities and seek the allotment of a dedicated space when Terminal 1 undergoes redevelopment in the coming years.
The judgment underlines the court’s position that at high-security installations, administrative and security considerations will outweigh requests for accommodation of religious practices at specific sites, even when those requests are made in good faith.
