Security comes first: Bombay High Court dismisses plea to restore space near airport for namaz

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by a taxi driver's body seeking seeking temporary space at Mumbai’s domestic airport to offer prayers during the month of Ramzan [Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Association v. Adani Airport Ltd & Ors.]

The plea by Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Association had sought restoration of a demolished prayer shed near Terminal 1 of the airport or an alternative space measuring 1,500 square feet for namaz during the holy month.

However, the State opposed the plea citing security concerns.

A Bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and FP Pooniwalla refused to grant relief to the petitioner-body on the ground that security must prevail over all other considerations.

“When there is a security risk, security comes first; irrespective of religion. When it comes to security, we will not compromise one bit,” the bench orally remarked.

However, it allowed the association apply to Airports Authority of India (AAI) for space at the redeveloped airport.

The petitioners said their temporary shed, which had existed for nearly three decades near Terminal 1, was demolished by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) in April 2025.

The association moved the High Court in February 2026 seeking directions to restore the shed or to provide an alternative prayer space within the airport area for drivers during Ramzan.

Advocate SB Talekar, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that a temple had recently come up in the vicinity and that security concerns were raised only after a third party complained.

The bench, however, made it clear that any such parity argument could not override safety assessments.

“Even if we assume there is a temple, two rights do not make a wrong. If someone comes to us saying that structure is illegal, we will order them to demolish that structure also,” the Court said.

During earlier hearings, the bench had asked the State to explore alternative sites nearby.

Pursuant to that direction, a security survey was conducted of seven potential locations, but the government informed the court that the locations suggested were unsuitable due to security risks and lack of space on account of ongoing development works at the terminal.

The State also pointed out that there was at least one mosque in the vicinity that the association members could use.

Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan submitted that the domestic terminal is a high-security, high-footfall zone with frequent VVIP movement, where unauthorised structures cannot be permitted.

Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, for Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), added that the demolished shed was close to a VIP entrance and therefore posed a potential security risk.

Advocate Shahzad Naqvi, for the association, argued that the shed had existed for about thirty years without any recorded security incident and that the prayer space had originally been identified by the authorities themselves.

He submitted that after demolition, drivers were left significantly inconvenienced during prayer times, especially in the month of Ramzan.

Additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan told the bench that there are at least three functional mosques within walking distance from the parking area used by the drivers.

Senior counsel Vikram Nankani, for Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), added that the demolished site was close to a VIP entrance gate and posed a potential security risk.  

While the Court acknowledged the inconvenience caused to drivers, it said it could not disregard the present security assessment.

"Even if there is no mosque for the sake of argument, they can’t have something like this at the airport. We have not seen this anywhere else. You cannot say you want to carry out your prayer here only. The report says there is no space available for you over there,” the bench remarked.

The Court noted that the security assessment report had found all seven alternative sites unsuitable. It expressed its inability to issue any direction for allotment of space even for the limited duration of Ramzan.

“Once we are faced with this report, we are unable to direct the respondents to allot any space to the petitioner association, even for a temporary period to undertake namaz during the month of Ramazan. Looking at the totality, we find that we are unable to give any relief to the petition. It is accordingly dismissed,” the Court held.

However, the bench kept the door open for future arrangements at the redeveloped airport.

It permitted the petitioners to approach MIAL and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) for space in the redeveloped facility, leaving it to their discretion to take a decision subject to security and development constraints.

“These (the drivers) are the people who service the passengers who come from the airport. Offering prayers is something that is an integral part of their religion,” the Court orally observed.