Security at airport takes precedence over devotional right, says Bombay HC

Bombay HC prioritizes airport security over religious practices, dismissing plea for prayer space near Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.

 In an observation, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (March 5, 2026) underscored that national security concerns outweigh individual religious practices, dismissing a plea by a group of cab and auto-rickshaw drivers who sought to offer namaz near the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport during the ongoing month of Ramzan.

A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla categorically stated that while Ramzan holds religious significance for the Muslim community, it does not confer upon its followers an inherent right to offer prayers at a location of their choosing, particularly when such a site poses a potential threat to the security apparatus of a sensitive installation like an airport.

“Ramzan is undoubtedly an integral part of the faith, but that does not translate into a fundamental right to pray at any given spot,” the Bench remarked. “When security considerations are paramount, they must override.”

The petition was moved by the Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Men’s Union, which contended that a temporary shed in the airport vicinity, historically used by drivers for congregational prayers, was demolished by civic authorities last year. The union sought either the restoration of that space or the allotment of an alternative site within the same area to accommodate the drivers during the holy month.

Earlier proceedings saw the court directing local police and airport officials to explore the feasibility of providing an alternate location. However, a report was submitted to the bench on Thursday. Authorities informed the court that a survey of seven potential sites in the vicinity was conducted, but every location was found unsuitable due to heavy congestion, security vulnerabilities, and developmental restrictions linked to the airport’s master plan.

After its examination, the court concluded that no directions could be issued in favour of the petitioners. “Since the issue directly touches upon the security of the airport, we are unable to grant any relief,” the order stated.