Preventing potentially dangerous consequences that could place the minority community’s right to practise their faith under the discretion of the majority, the Madras High Court, by setting aside the Kanyakumari District Collector’s denial of permission for the construction of a Bible Study Centre on private land, upheld the fundamental right to practise one’s religion.
The Madras High Court has permitted the construction of a Bible Study Centre in Kanyakumari district, ruling that the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution cannot be restricted based on mere apprehensions of law and order issues. The decision came after Jacob Sahariah, the District Secretary of the CSI Church in Erichamamoottu Villai, challenged the district administration’s refusal to grant permission for the project, livelaw.in reported.
Sahariah had applied for permission to construct a Sunday Bible School under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997, but his request was rejected by the District Collector based on reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Superintendent of Police, who cited potential law and order concerns. The petitioner argued that he was not provided copies of these reports and contended that the rejection violated his constitutional rights, as the centre was to be built on private land.
The state government’s legal representative maintained that objections had been raised by people of a different faith, and authorities had to consider the ground reality to prevent any disturbances in the area. The government expressed concerns that allowing the centre’s construction could lead to unrest and disrupt peace and tranquillity in the locality.
In response, the petitioner assured the court that he was willing to abide by certain conditions, including refraining from installing electronic display boards or loudspeakers outside the building. The court took note of this submission and held that unless an alarming situation was evident, denying permission on the basis of speculative law and order concerns was not justified.
The bench, comprising Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice N Senthil Kumar, observed that the petitioner was the absolute owner of the land and that his right to construct the building could not be arbitrarily denied.
The court also emphasised that while permission could not be refused on constitutional grounds, other technical requirements under the building regulations must be met before the project could proceed. The petitioner was directed to submit a notarised declaration regarding his commitment to refrain from installing electronic boards or using loudspeakers to the District Collector.