Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Prakash Ramachandran v. The District Collector and Others, 2025

The Religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health.

Madras High Court·18 July 2025

Court

Madras High Court

Date of Decision

18 July 2025

Judges

Justice Anand Venkatesh

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 25 of the Constitution of India Article 26 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Prakash Ramachandran, filed a writ petition alleging that the Global Organisation for Divinity was conducting Nama Sankeerthanam (devotional chanting) at a residential property, converting it into a prayer hall.
The petitioner contended that such activities were being carried out without obtaining permission from the District Collector and were causing nuisance to the neighbours.
The respondents argued that they had already submitted an application to the District Collector and that the religious activities were conducted for peace of mind, protected under Articles 25 and 26.

Whether Nama Sankeerthanam conducted in a residential premises without collector's approval violates local laws and causes public nuisance?
Whether such religious gatherings fall within the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
Whether conversion of residential property into a prayer hall can be permitted without express permission from competent authorities?
What are the limits of religious freedom when it conflicts with public convenience and neighbourhood rights?

The Madras High Court ruled that Nama Sankeerthanam or any religious gathering involving public participation cannot be conducted in residential premises without prior approval from the District Collector.
The Court restrained the respondent from using the premises as a prayer hall until such permission is granted.
The Court directed the Inspector of Police to ensure that no public nuisance is caused due to any such gatherings.
It clarified that any personal prayer must be restricted to within the home, without public gatherings or disturbance to others.

The Conversion of a residential house into a prayer hall is not permissible without District Collector’s sanction.
“In the considered view of this Court, whenever a residential premises is attempted to be converted as a prayer hall, it requires the permission of the District Collector. This position of law has been reiterated in various orders passed by this Court,” the court observed.
Though the individual claimed that the religious rights were protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution and that the prayer was being conducted for peace of mind, the court noted that what was divine to him was causing nuisance to the neighbours.
“The fifth respondent has flatly given his opinion about the Nama Sankeerthanam that is done in the subject premises. What sounds to the fifth respondent as divine, is causing nuisance to the petitioner,” the court said.
The Religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health.
The Even activities considered divine by some may cause disturbance or nuisance to others and must be regulated.

The Court struck a balance between religious freedoms and the rights of residents to enjoy peace in their neighbourhood.
It reinforced that constitutional rights are not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably, especially when they intersect with public interest or administrative norms.
The Court highlighted the need for procedural compliance, especially when a residential property is being used for public religious functions.
It relied on the principle of nuisance and the need for orderly urban governance, noting that spirituality cannot justify inconvenience to others.
This ruling sets a precedent on the limitations of unregulated religious assemblies in residential areas.