Mumbai Airport Namaz Case: High-Security Zones Cannot Become Judicial Experiment Zones
The recent plea before the Bombay High Court seeking space for namaz near Mumbai’s airport should have been a straightforward administrative matter. A prayer shed near the airport was removed. Petitioners approached the Court seeking restoration or an alternate arrangement. The Maharashtra government opposed the request, citing security risks around a sensitive airport perimeter and VIP access zone. Yet instead of deferring to the State’s security assessment, the Court asked authorities to explore a temporary alternative. That direction, however well-intentioned, risks crossing into operational terrain where judicial restraint should prevail.
Airports Are Not Civic Parks
Airports function as layered security ecosystems. Perimeter controls, access grids, threat modelling, intelligence inputs, and crowd-density calculations are not symbolic exercises. They are structured around worst-case scenarios. Any gathering near a controlled entry point, especially close to VIP corridors, affects response protocols and vulnerability mapping. When a High Court suggests exploring alternate arrangements within or near such zones despite explicit security objections, it risks substituting judicial balancing for professional security assessment.
Security doctrine is technical, not sentimental. Courts review legality; they do not calibrate threat matrices.
When Courts Blur Responsibility
If accommodation is nudged into existence and something goes wrong, the burden of accountability will fall squarely on the executive. Police and aviation authorities remain responsible for consequences, not the bench that encouraged flexibility. This is precisely why separation of powers matters in high-risk environments.
Judicial suggestions in sensitive zones shift risk but not responsibility. That imbalance weakens institutional clarity. Security agencies must operate with predictability, not under the shadow of litigation-driven adjustments.
Three Mosques Nearby – The Weak Necessity Argument
The State reportedly informed the Court that multiple mosques exist within reasonable travel distance. The case is not about prohibiting prayer. It is about denying a specific location near a security-sensitive airport zone.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It does not guarantee preferred geography. If alternate places of worship are practically accessible, the threshold for judicial intervention must be higher. Convenience cannot be elevated into constitutional compulsion.
Accommodation vs Appeasement
Courts must distinguish between genuine rights violations and symbolic assertion. When alternate facilities exist and security objections are clearly articulated, pressing for proximity inside a sensitive zone risks appearing less like constitutional balancing and more like institutional over-accommodation.
Repeated judicial willingness to entertain such location-based demands risks encouraging litigation as a tool to renegotiate administrative boundaries. Public infrastructure should not be gradually territorialised through courtroom persuasion.
Separation of Powers Is Not Optional
Security and public order fall squarely within executive competence. The judiciary’s role is to test legality and prevent arbitrariness, not to redesign security geography. When security agencies cite risk around a strategic installation like an airport, judicial deference should be the default unless clear evidence of discrimination or bad faith is demonstrated.
Crossing from review into operational micro-management weakens the doctrine of separation of powers that underpins constitutional governance.
Draw a Clear Line
Religious freedom is fundamental. Aviation security is existential. In environments where the margin for error is zero, institutional restraint is not abdication but responsibility.
High-security zones exist to prevent tragedy, not to host negotiated accommodation. Courts safeguard rights. They must not convert sensitive national infrastructure into arenas of judicial experimentation.
High-security zones cannot become judicial experiment zones.
