Bombay High Court Denies Prayer Space at Mumbai Airport During Ramadan

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a designated prayer area at Mumbai Airport during Ramadan, emphasizing that security concerns take precedence over religious rights. The court ruled that while Ramadan is significant for Muslims, it does not grant the right to pray in any specific location, especially in high-security areas like airports. The decision followed a request from the Taxi Rickshaw Ola Uber Association, which sought to reinstate a prayer shed that had been demolished. The court's ruling highlights the balance between religious practices and safety protocols, allowing petitioners to submit future requests to airport authorities.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 7, 2026, 12:57 IST

Court Ruling on Prayer Space Request

The Bombay High Court has ruled that offering prayers in any location cannot be considered a religious right when security is at risk, emphasizing that safety must always come first. Regardless of the religion, there will be no compromises on security matters. The court made this statement on March 5 while dismissing a petition requesting a designated area for prayers at Mumbai Airport during Ramadan.

Related News: Kejriwal Claims Victory After Court Acquittal, Says Modi-Shah's Conspiracy Failed

The petition was filed by the Taxi Rickshaw Ola Uber Association. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdous Pooniwala. The association requested the court to reinstate a small shed that previously existed near Terminal 1 of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport for prayer purposes. If that was not feasible, they sought an alternative space of approximately 1,500 square feet for drivers to pray during Ramadan. They argued that the temporary shed had been in place for about 30 years until it was demolished by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) in April 2025, causing difficulties for drivers, especially during Ramadan. Consequently, they filed the petition in February 2026.

Representing the drivers, lawyers Shahzad Naqvi and S.B. Talekar stated that the location had been designated by officials and that there had never been any security breaches in the past. They also noted that a temple had recently been constructed nearby, but security concerns were raised only after a third party lodged a complaint. The state government informed the court that the domestic terminal at the airport is a high-security area with frequent VIP movements, making it impossible to establish any unauthorized structures. Government lawyer Jyoti Chauhan pointed out that there are at least three mosques within walking distance from the drivers' parking area where they can pray.

Senior advocate Vikram Nankani, representing Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), stated that the shed that was demolished was located near the VIP entry gate and posed a security risk.

The Bombay High Court reiterated that security takes precedence over religious practices. The bench emphasized that while Ramadan is an essential aspect of Islam, followers cannot claim a religious right to pray at any location, particularly near the airport, due to significant security concerns. The bench cautioned the petitioners that they cannot dictate where prayers should be held, stating that if they are requesting space at the airport today, they might demand space at other public venues tomorrow. The court clarified that praying at any location is not a religious right. However, the bench did allow the petitioners to submit a memorandum to airport authorities for future consideration.

Previous Court Directives

During earlier hearings, the court had instructed airport officials to explore the possibility of allocating an alternative space for the petitioners. The officials presented a report to the bench indicating that while some locations were considered, none were deemed suitable for prayer due to crowding, security issues, and ongoing development projects. The bench concluded that religion cannot supersede security, asserting that safety must never be compromised.