SC rejects plea for civilian prayers in mosque inside military area

Story by PTI | Posted by Vidushi Gaur | Date 17-11-2025

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea raising a grievance over not permitting the civilians to offer prayers in a mosque located inside the military quarters in Chennai, saying there may be security issues.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a plea challenging an April 2025 order of a division bench of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed an appeal against its single judge order.

The high court's division bench had noted that it cannot interfere with an administrative decision taken by the military authorities for not allowing outsiders to enter the Army premises for worship or otherwise.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner told the apex court that entry for outsiders at the 'Masjid-E-Aalishaan' was prohibited only during the Covid-19 pandemic.

"There are security issues and so many things. How can we allow that," the bench told the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The counsel said from 1877 to 2022, there were no security issues there. However, the top court dismissed the plea challenging the high court order.

Before the high court, the petitioner had said that the Army authority was not permitting civilians to offer prayers in the mosque located inside the military quarters.

The division bench had noted that the station commander rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner in a verbal order in June 2021, and it was specifically stated that the 'Masjid-E-Aalishaan' was primarily for the use of men connected with the unit and strictly not for outsiders as per the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937.

"It is the prerogative of the administration to take a decision whether to permit outsiders or not. In the present case, relying on the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, the authority has taken a decision not to permit outsiders," the high court had said and refused to interfere with the order passed by its single judge, who had dismissed the petition.