GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court on Friday refused to issue any notice in a PIL seeking the establishment of a prayer room for a particular community at Guwahati airport, asking the petitioner if such a right is guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund was hearing the PIL (64/2023) seeking a prayer room at LGBI airport in Guwahati.
The bench refused to issue a notice on the ground that the prayer room would cater to the needs of a specific community, referring to the petitioner's citing the example of the Muslim community. The petitioner contended that the prayer room could be used by all communities and that several airports, including the Delhi airport, provided a separate prayer room. The petitioner also argued that the establishment of a prayer room would be protected by the provisions under Articles 25 and 30 of the Constitution.
Justice Mehta pointed out that India is a secular country and asked the petitioner if such a right is guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all people in India. It provides that all persons in India are subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions. It provides that all citizens are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and have the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Article 30 discusses the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. This right is given to minorities to form and govern their own educational institutions.
Chief Justice Mehta asked the petitioner to provide an example of one such earlier judgment. He asked the petitioner, "Where does Article 25 give the right to any citizen to enforce or seek a writ that in every public institution, there should be a prayer room? Please tell us, or at least give one judgement on that. Given the fact that the government has constructed such a prayer room in a particular airport or a few airports, would that give every citizen the right to claim that a prayer room should be constructed in all public establishments? Why only airports, then? Why not every public institution? Is it a fundamental right? You have places of worship; go there and worship."
The petitioner pointed out that there was a fixed time for prayers, and sometimes the flight timing clashed with the timing of prayers, citing the example of Muslim prayers, which necessitated a prayer room. CJ Mehta replied that flights can be booked keeping in mind the timings of prayers to make sure that the flight does not coincide with prayer time.
The petitioner then argued that there are smoking zones, spas, and rules for even the establishment of restaurants. So, he said, space could be allotted for a prayer room too.
The bench, however, responded that separate smoking zones are to prevent public harm, which ensures that the health of others does not suffer.
Similarly, the bench underlined that opening restaurants is for the commercial viability of the airports. "Those are commercial activities. They will do. But prayer is not a commercial activity," it said.
The petitioner was then asked whether he needed more time to prepare his case. Upon asking for 15 days' time, the petitioner was granted the time to prepare and address the Court regarding the reliefs sought.
The court will next hear the PIL after 15 days.
Also Watch: