By Justice (R) Markandey Katju (India)
The decision of the new West Bengal government to prohibit namaz on roads and restrict loudspeaker use beyond religious precincts has triggered considerable debate across India. Yet, viewed objectively and constitutionally, this decision should be welcomed by all reasonable citizens, including Muslims. Public roads are meant for public movement, not for religious occupation, and no democratic society can permit practices that create obstruction, inconvenience, or public disorder.
Freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution is not absolute. Like every other constitutional freedom, it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and the rights of others. Blocking roads for prayers or using loudspeakers in a manner that disturbs the public cannot be justified merely in the name of religion. This principle applies equally to all communities, whether Muslim processions, Hindu festivals, or any other religious activity.
In this regard, the West Bengal government’s direction to ensure that loudspeaker sounds remain confined within religious premises is a sensible and lawful administrative step. Similarly, the prohibition of roadside namaz addresses a longstanding issue that has repeatedly caused traffic disruption and public tension in several Indian cities.
However, there is another side to this issue which many deliberately ignore.
Muslims in India generally offer daily namaz within their homes or nearby mosques. Friday prayers, however, hold special congregational importance in Islam, and many Muslims prefer to pray collectively in mosques with members of their locality. The real problem is that while India’s Muslim population has increased enormously since 1947, the number of mosques has not increased proportionately in many regions.
In several states, particularly Uttar Pradesh, Muslims seeking to construct mosques on their own land have often faced bureaucratic obstruction, administrative hostility, or unofficial political resistance. As a consequence, many worshippers are left without adequate religious space, forcing some congregations onto roads or public grounds, thereby creating precisely the nuisance that authorities later condemn.
This contradiction exposes a deeper hypocrisy within the system: authorities oppose prayers on roads, yet often make it difficult to establish lawful alternatives.
I recall a matter that came before me in 1999 when I was serving as a Judge of the Allahabad High Court. A Muslim petitioner from Moradabad approached the court complaining that he was being prevented from constructing a mosque on his own land. The Uttar Pradesh government argued that he had failed to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the District Magistrate.
When questioned in court, the government counsel was unable to point to any law requiring such permission for constructing a mosque on privately owned land. In fact, no such law existed. I therefore held that Muslims were fully entitled to build mosques on their own property, or on land voluntarily made available to them, without requiring arbitrary administrative approval.
That judgment reflected a simple constitutional principle: if the State wishes to prohibit religious activities from spilling onto public roads, it must also ensure that citizens are not unlawfully denied lawful spaces for worship.
Unfortunately, in contemporary India, religious issues are increasingly viewed not through constitutional balance but through political polarization. Measures affecting Muslims are often celebrated not because they advance legality or governance, but because they are seen as demonstrations of majoritarian dominance. Such an approach is dangerous for any democracy.
A mature constitutional state must act with fairness, consistency, and neutrality. If loudspeakers causing disturbance are restricted, the rule must apply equally to temples, mosques, political rallies, and festivals. If roads cannot be used for prayers, then authorities must facilitate lawful construction of sufficient religious spaces so that citizens are not pushed into confrontation.
Otherwise, governance ceases to be about law and order and becomes selective enforcement disguised as nationalism.
The West Bengal government has taken a step that can be justified legally and administratively. But if it genuinely wishes to resolve the issue rather than merely weaponize it politically, it should simultaneously direct district authorities to stop obstructing lawful mosque construction on private land.
A constitutional democracy cannot deny citizens adequate space for worship and then punish them when worship overflows into public spaces. That is not governance. That is institutional contradiction.
