The Gauhati High Court has ruled that individuals cannot request the government to establish a dedicated area for religious practices at an airport. The court's decision emphasized that the rights protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution do not extend to demanding a prayer room in a public space such as an airport.

The Gauhati High Court was addressing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an individual (the petitioner). The petitioner had requested the court to instruct the authorities to establish a designated prayer room at the Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport in Guwahati. Initially, the Court had granted the petitioner 15 days to prepare and present their case regarding the relief sought in the PIL. However, the court declined to issue a notice and questioned why a prayer room for a specific religious community was being requested.

A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kardak Ete made it clear that they did not find the petitioner's argument convincing. The petitioner had argued that since prayer rooms exist in some airports across the country, a similar facility should be established at Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport in Guwahati. However, the court pointed out that the petitioner had not provided information about the circumstances in which these prayer rooms were established in other airports. The court expressed the view that it is not appropriate for a litigant to request the government to create a dedicated space for religious practices within an airport.

The Bench maintained that the absence of a similar facility at the Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport in Guwahati does not infringe upon any fundamental right of the petitioner.

The petitioner argued in court that passengers of various religious backgrounds traveling through Guwahati Airport did not have access to a proper prayer room facility, which was available in several other airports in the country, such as Delhi International Airport, Mumbai International Airport, Mangaloroo Airport, and Agartala Airport. The petitioner cited certain Supreme Court judgments and asserted that Article 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice and propagate religion to Indian citizens but also to every individual, irrespective of their citizenship status.

The petitioner additionally invoked Article 26 of the Constitution and contended that the Constitution has assured any religious denomination or a section thereof the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage religious affairs in their own way. As a result, the petitioner argued that individuals adhering to all religions have the right to request the authorities to establish a dedicated prayer room at the airport in order to facilitate the exercise of their fundamental right to offer prayers.

The High Court, considering the petitioner's requests, expressed its perspective by stating, "We firmly believe that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India provide individuals with the freedom to practice a particular religion and to own and manage properties, both movable and immovable, in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, these rights cannot be extended to the point where a religious denomination can insist on the establishment of a dedicated prayer facility in a public space such as an airport."

The Court emphasized that the decision regarding the need for specific facilities at an airport, especially in the case of religious facilities, falls within the jurisdiction of the Government or the Airport Authority of India. It is their responsibility to determine whether such facilities are necessary to accommodate people using the airport.

The High Court, when utilizing the exceptional writ jurisdiction granted by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be requested to intervene in government policy decisions. At this point, the petitioner asked for permission to approach the relevant authorities with a representation to express their concerns. The Court firmly held that there is no hindrance to the petitioner submitting such a representation, and no court permission is necessary for doing so.

Moreover, the Court noted that there were no allegations or claims that could substantiate that the petitioner had been authorized or sponsored by the general public or society at large to represent their interests in a writ petition categorized as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

In conclusion, the Court stated that it did not find merit in the petitioner's claims presented in person in this writ petition. Additionally, the Court did not believe that the writ petition advocated for a public cause that would justify granting the requested relief.

In accordance with its findings and conclusions, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case: Rana Saidur Zaman v. The Union of India & Ors, Case No. : PIL/64/2023.