The Karnataka High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) lodged by residents of HBR Layout in Bengaluru. The PIL claimed that a residential property was being employed for religious prayers.

The Division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal, recently dismissed the PIL.

"Inspite of our repeated queries the counsel was unable to show any such prohibition, prevention in the rules of law, prohibiting an occupant to utilise the residential place for offering prayer." , PIL said.

The Court has not yet released the official judgment copy.

Sam P Philip, Krishna SK, Jagaeesan TP, along with five other residents of HBR Layout, initially approached the Court with their concerns regarding the Housing and Urban Development Department, BBMP, and Masjid E-Ashrafit. Their initial petition was later converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

It was contended that a residential area was being used as a prayer hall causing disturbance to the neighbours. The matter had reached the Court once before when the Masjid Trust had constructed a building without the approval of the BBMP.

Earlier, the Court issued a directive stipulating that the construction of a Madarasa building could only proceed after obtaining the necessary approval from the BBMP. Subsequently, the building was erected and has been utilized as a Madarasa for underprivileged children. The PIL was filed following the construction of this new building on the property.

While dismissing the PIL, the Court noted that the "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 (he) repeatedly submitted that as there may be a large gathering of people, the petitioners and residents apprehend disturbance. These submissions neither stand reasons, logic or law."

During the hearing of the PIL, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the argument presented by the petitioners' counsel, which suggested that conducting prayers posed a potential risk

"We are not permitting such statements. This is something to which we have strong objections, you cannot make a statement so casually. You have no right to make such sweeping statements. One can only say that there is some violation of rules, please as the authorities. How can you say someone offering prayer is a threatening activity?” the Court cautioned.