In a notable judgment, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by residents of HBR Layout in Bengaluru, who were opposing the use of a residential property as a prayer hall. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal strongly rebuffed the argument that “offering prayers was a risk” and emphasized that offering prayers is not a threatening activity, LiveLaw reported.
During the hearing, the bench expressed its disapproval of the petitioner’s counsel’s assertion that offering prayers posed a risk. The Chief Justice stated, “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?”
Consequently, the PIL was dismissed by the court, which found it to be based on erroneous assumptions and impressions of the petitioner. The residents had raised concerns about a breach of regulations, citing disturbances caused by gatherings of people due to prayer activities.
Upon reviewing the case records, the court noted that in a previous legal proceeding, it was acknowledged that the respondent trust had constructed a building on the property in question for running a madrasa to educate underprivileged children and for conducting prayers. Although the trust had not obtained permission from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for the construction, the court had allowed it to proceed based on approved plans.
The court considered the objections filed by the trust in the earlier petition, explaining that due to space constraints, the existing building was replaced with a new one to accommodate the increasing population in the area. The trust had submitted its plans for approval to BBMP.
The court affirmed, “What emerges from material is that pursuant to approval granted by BBMP, a new building was constructed, and right from the beginning, the usage of the building was for a specified object—namely a residential school, madrasa for poor and needy students in the said area, and a hall being used as a prayer hall.”
The court emphasized that the petitioners failed to provide any specific prohibition or legal basis preventing the use of a residential area for offering prayers, either by the occupants or their guests. The bench reiterated that there was no restriction on the number of guests either and pointed out that the petitioner had initially stated that permission was granted to the trust to run a madrasa and offer prayers.
Consequently, the court found that the apprehensions of disturbance were based on unfounded assumptions and presumptions and that there were no reported instances of unruly behaviour by those offering prayers. The PIL was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
This judgment reinforces the importance of respecting individuals’ rights to practice their faith within the confines of the law and without causing undue interference or disturbance to others in their residential areas.
Related
