3 months ago
1
The Supreme Court connected Monday (February 9, 2026) refused to entertain a situation to Madras High Court orders restricting the behaviour of prayer, including namaz, astatine Nellithoppu country of the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, located atop the Thiruppurankundram elevation successful Madurai territory of Tamil Nadu, during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone.
Appearing earlier a Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar, advocator Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Imam Hussain, said the High Court’s uncovering that “Mohammedans could beryllium permitted to connection their prayers successful Neilithoppu country during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone… without disturbing the accepted footsteps which pb to Kasi Vishwanathar Temple” had crossed the “constitutional boundary”.
The petition said the High Court had simply endorsed a bid committee knowing with respect to show of namaz astatine Nellithoppu during Ramzan and Bakrid.
“The High Court took this situational compromise meant to avert instrumentality and bid issues and elevated it into a imperishable judicial regularisation that supplication should beryllium confined to Ramzan and Bakrid alone. It is submitted that a impermanent knowing reached successful an administrative gathering cannot crystallise into a Constitutional ceiling connected spiritual practice,” Mr. Bhushan argued.
He submitted from the petition that the High Court, without pointing to immoderate circumstantial statutory authority, dictated the occasions connected which namaz, an “essential spiritual practice”, could beryllium observed.
The petition challenged the High Court’s uncovering that the signifier of offering namaz was lone of a “recent origin”.
“Neither Article 25 (freedom of religion) nor settled Constitutional jurisprudence necessitate impervious for ‘recognised indispensable spiritual practice’ from time-immemorial arsenic a information precedent for protection. It is submitted that the lone request is to find whether the practice/ritual is bona fide, spiritual successful character, and not prohibited by law,” the petition countered.
The High Court, the plea challenged, had concluded that a ample fig of persons offering namaz and prayers would obstruct the pathway starring to the Kasi Viswanathar Temple and encroach upon different portions of the temple premises, thereby resulting successful a usurpation of a civilian tribunal decree passed implicit a period agone connected August 25,1923.
The October 10, 2025 bid was passed by a 3rd justice aft a Division of the High Court gave a divided presumption connected June 24, 2025 regarding the restrictions connected the offering of namaz.
The petition, which was dismissed aft a abbreviated hearing, submitted successful the apex tribunal that the regulation placed by the High Court done its October 10 determination connected the offering of the “well-recognised indispensable spiritual signifier of Islam, namely namaz, to lone 2 occasions successful a twelvemonth astatine the Nellithoppu country owned by the Dargah/Mosque Committee, adjacent though believers connection namaz each day” was arbitrary and contrary to the breadth of Article 25, which protects the continuous signifier and manifestation of faith”.
The petitioner said that helium was a regular worshipper astatine the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah and the adjoining supplication abstraction astatine Neliithoppu. The High Court orders, helium alleged, had efficaciously barred him from offering namaz astatine the Neliithoppu area.
“By confining supplication astatine Neilithoppu country to 2 festival days, the High Court bid of October 10 impermissibly abridges equality earlier instrumentality by disproportionately burdening 1 community. It violates dignity and idiosyncratic liberty by compelling adherents to suppress their spiritual individuality but connected designated days. It invades the state of conscience and assemblage of religion protected nether Article 25. The bid undermines the denominational close to negociate its ain spiritual affairs nether Article 26,” the petition said.
EOM
