The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking access for civilians to offer prayers inside a mosque located within a military area in Chennai, observing that the ability to practise one’s religion is not intrinsically tied to any single place of worship.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the petitioner could not insist on entry into a restricted defence zone simply because a mosque existed there, stressing that security considerations within military premises must ultimately rest with the armed forces.
“Can just one place be said to be connected to the practice of religion?” the bench asked during the hearing. “You have so many options available and that is what the high court has also said.”
Senior advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Masjid-E-Aalishaan had historically been accessible to civilians and that the right to offer namaz there did not disappear merely because it was situated inside army land.
“This is a mosque and I have a right to pray there. There may be many other mosques too. But why should I have no right to pray here?” submitted Shamshad, adding that the mosque had been freely accessible between 1877 and 2002 and that no security issue had ever been raised during that period.
The bench, however, underlined that the military’s assessment must prevail. “There can be security issues. After all, it is inside the military quarters,” it said. When Shamshad countered that no such issues existed for over a century, the bench responded: “There can be now. How do we say anything? It has to be their assessment.” The petition was then dismissed at the threshold.
{{/usCountry}}The bench, however, underlined that the military’s assessment must prevail. “There can be security issues. After all, it is inside the military quarters,” it said. When Shamshad countered that no such issues existed for over a century, the bench responded: “There can be now. How do we say anything? It has to be their assessment.” The petition was then dismissed at the threshold.
{{/usCountry}}Monday’s dismissal effectively affirms an April 2025 decision of the Madras high court, which had refused to direct military authorities to open the mosque for civilian worshippers. The petitioner had challenged a 2024 single-judge order that relied heavily on the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, which prohibits the erection or use of religious structures on defence land for the benefit of outsiders unless denying access would cause “real hardship” to those officially posted there.
Rule 14(vi)(b) of the 1937 Rules, specifically cited by the station commander while rejecting the petitioner’s representation in 2021, states that religious buildings situated within military lines are “primarily for the use of the men connected with the unit and no outsiders will be permitted to use such buildings without the authority of the officer commanding.” The army authorities had also noted that Masjid-E-Aalishaan, located inside the Usman Lane Military Quarters, was strictly meant for personnel residing or serving within the unit.
The petitioner, Mohammed Noorullah Sherif, argued that restrictions were imposed only during the Covid-19 period and that the subsequent ban on civilian entry was arbitrary. The high court, however, held that the military is fully empowered to regulate entry into defence installations, including for religious purposes, and that courts cannot interfere with such administrative decisions. Finding no legal infirmity, it dismissed the writ appeal in April, a conclusion now effectively endorsed by the Supreme Court.
The top court’s reasoning on Monday echoed its stance earlier this month when the same bench refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh high court’s decision to uphold the demolition of the 200-year-old Takiya Masjid in Ujjain. In that case, petitioners had sought reconstruction of the demolished mosque, arguing that Article 25 was violated because the place of worship had been in continuous use and was a notified waqf property.
But, on November 7, the Supreme Court had declined to reopen the issue, endorsing the high court’s view that the constitutional right to practise religion does not attach to any particular location. The high court had ruled that the land was lawfully acquired for expanding the Mahakal Lok complex and that compensation, if due, could be pursued under the land acquisition law.
Senior advocate Shamshad, who also appeared in that matter, had urged the Supreme Court to intervene, calling the demolition illegal and arguing that the right to worship at a specific mosque was integral to the petitioners’ faith. But, the bench reiterated that alternative remedies existed and dismissed the plea.