Madras High Court Dismisses a Writ Petition Against Azan

Madras High Court Dismisses a Writ Petition Against Azan

1989 12 December 16-17 Madras High Court Dismisses a Writ Petition Against Azan (600) Reproduced below is the text of the Madras High Court Judgement delivered on 12th July, 1989, by Justice Bakthavatsalam, dismissing a writ petition filed against Azan.

“The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to take suitable steps to prevent use of the public addressing system, coming from the mosque, situated at No. 60, Village Road, Nungambukkam, Madras. The first petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Agatheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Devasthanam. She alleges in the affidavit that there are eight temples situated within a radius of 100 to 200 meters. It seems that one of the properties of the temple which was the subject matter of certain civil proceedings was purchased by one V.G. Ramalingam and he, in turn, sold it to the Nungambakkam Muslim Welfare Association.

“It seems that a mosque has been constructed on the said property and prayers are being offered in the mosque by means of a public addressing system. The grievances of the petitioner is that this has created a nuisance for all the public living in and around the temples, mentioned above. When Poojas are conducted in the temples, the mosque indulges in the public addressing system thereby creating chaos and confusion. It seems that the petitioner and others moved the authorities concerned complaining about the public and addressing system indulged in by the mosque and stating that the temple and their worshippers should not, in any manner, be prejudiced by the action of the mosque and offering prayers in the mosque by public addressing system, is a nuisance caused to the local inhabitants. When no action was taken by the third respondent, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with the above prayer.

“I heard Mr. A.S. Kailasam, learned counsel for the petitioners, in extense. I am not satisfied that this is a matter in which this Court should interfere by extending its area under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reason given by the petitioners in the affidavit that the public addressing system in the mosque causes nuisance to the public is not convincing. If the petitioners feel that such public addressing system causes nuisance, there are other remedies open to them and surely no relief could be, given under Article 226 of the Constitution in that regard. Moreover, in a democratic country like ours where different religions are professed, every person has got a right to worship according to his own religion.

“Actually it is so enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Moreover, the first petitioner who is a hereditary trustee of a Hindu temple and who has filed this writ petition representing the inhabitants of the locality cannot deny that in Hindu temples also, the very same public addressing system is used during festivals and especially during the month of Margazhi now-a-days when Thiruppaval and Thiruvenbavai are recited in the very early hours of the day i.e. even before the sunrise. As such, in matters of this kind, certain amount of tolerance is needed especially in a country like ours where different religious beliefs are practiced.

“Therefore, this Court has got a duty to strike a balance in such matters. As such I do not think the petitioners’ complaint is worthwhile considering and I am sure that the public addressing system is used in the mosque only according to law. What is required on the part of the authorities is to see that everybody uses the public addressing system only according to law. With this observations, the writ petition will stand dismissed.”

Courtsey: Radiance, September 3-9, 1989.