Right To Worship Must Coexist With Public Order | Madras High Court Allows Reopening Of Sealed Property But Bars Use As Prayer Hall Without Prior Approval
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that converting a residential property into a public place of worship without prior permission is not permissible under the applicable statutory provisions. The Court directed the authorities to remove the seal placed on the petitioner’s property, but with a clear restriction that it must not be used as a prayer hall unless requisite permissions are obtained.
This direction came after the petitioner had sought relief against the closure of a property used for religious congregation, which the authorities alleged was being run without official sanction and had caused public disturbance. The Court acknowledged the religious aspect of prayer but firmly reiterated that public worship must conform to existing legal frameworks. Therefore, while allowing the petitioner to reclaim possession, it imposed strict conditionalities regarding future use. The petition was disposed of with no costs.
The petitioner, a representative of "Word of God Ministries Trust," filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 20.01.2024 issued by the Tahsildar of Kodavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District. According to the petitioner, the Trust was established in 2007, and the property in question was purchased on 02.01.2023 via Document No.2/2023. Subsequently, the patta for the property was transferred in the name of the Trust in 2023. The petitioner contended that regular prayer meetings were being conducted on the premises, mainly involving family members and neighbours.
However, the petitioner stated that a complaint was filed against these prayer meetings, which led to an enquiry by the Inspector of Police at Kodavasal Police Station. Following this, the petitioner submitted an application seeking building permission and approval to construct a church. This application was rejected by the District Collector. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued a notice directing the closure of the prayer house within ten days, warning of legal consequences upon failure to comply.
In response, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice. The petitioner claimed that the prayers conducted did not disturb public order and stated that prayer meetings are an integral part of Christian religious practice.
The first respondent, the District Collector, filed a counter affidavit. It was asserted that the petitioner could not conduct prayer meetings in a prayer hall without securing proper authorization. Furthermore, it was submitted that the prayer activities were causing disturbance to local residents. The District Collector referred to earlier judicial pronouncements holding that premises intended for public worship must adhere to specific building and land use regulations.
The case, as acknowledged by the Court, was squarely covered by previous judgements, including W.P.(MD) No.5226 of 2016 decided on 29.04.2021. Photographs and materials submitted during the District Collector’s enquiry substantiated the claim that the premises was being used as a full-fledged prayer hall accommodating large gatherings. The authorities maintained that such usage necessitates compliance with the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997 and provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
During the writ proceedings, the petitioner submitted an affidavit undertaking not to use loudspeakers or microphones during prayer sessions. The petitioner requested that the undertaking be recorded and that the property be reopened. However, the Court viewed this undertaking as insufficient.
"This Court finds the petitioner, in the guise of conducting prayer meetings, is actually having a full-fledged prayer hall intended for religious purposes where huge congregations take place." The Court referenced photographic evidence presented during the District Collector’s enquiry.
"The premises is actually used as a place of public worship without obtaining the necessary permission under the relevant rules."
"The fulcrum of any religious faith is 'the truth', and no religion tolerates any act which takes a person away from the truth."
"The petitioner has attempted to portray as if the premises is being used only for group prayers while the same is being used for huge public gatherings for public worship."
The Court examined Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997 and Rule 47-A under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. It concluded that these regulatory norms had not been adhered to.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, the Court observed: "Practice becomes part of religion only if such practice is found to be an essential and integral part."
"A particular fundamental right cannot exist in isolation in a watertight compartment. One fundamental right of a person may have to coexist in harmony with the exercise of another fundamental right by others."
The Court acknowledged that congregational prayer is indeed an integral practice in Christianity, referencing Matthew 6:5-6: "When you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret."
"Any sort of prayer contemplated by the religion is directed only towards the father, and it is a very personal and profound connect between the father and the one who is praying."
The Court also relied on Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, observing: "No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums."
"Enjoyment of one's rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others."
"Rules prescribing reasonable restrictions...are required to be enforced."
The Court concluded: "The moment the exercise of such a right affects the rights of others, it must be subjected to reasonable restriction."
"Once the prayer meeting assumes such larger proportions resulting in public worship, attended by huge crowds, the very nature of the building changes... and would require obtaining necessary permission under the relevant rules."
The Court issued the following operative directions:
"There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to remove the seal from the property, in order to enable the petitioner to take possession of the property."
"The property shall not be utilised as a prayer hall for conducting prayer meetings and if the petitioner intends to convert the property into a prayer hall, the petitioner is directed to approach the District Collector and seek for permission."
"If the petitioner once again attempts to utilise the property as a prayer hall, it is left open to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law."
With this clarification, the writ petition was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Samidurai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. T.M. Rajangam, Government Advocate
Case Title: Pastor L. Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector & Another
Case Number: W.P. No. 2036 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
[Read/Download order]
