Introduction
The Airports Authority of India opposed interim permission to resume prayers at the Bankra Mosque within the Kolkata airport premises, citing aviation and national security concerns. The petitioners, however, argued that prayers had been conducted at the mosque for decades without any security incident.
Background
The Calcutta High Court heard detailed submissions on a petition filed by the Bankra Masjid Committee challenging the restriction on access to the mosque located within the Kolkata airport premises.
Justice Krishna Rao was hearing the petition seeking interim permission to resume prayers pending adjudication of the main case. Access to the mosque was restricted from July 11, 2026, following concerns raised by the airport and aviation authorities.
The Airports Authority of India (AAI), represented by Senior Advocate S.N. Mookherjee, opposed the interim relief. The AAI submitted that the land on which the mosque is situated had been acquired decades ago for airport-related purposes.
Referring to a notification dated February 7, 1961, the AAI submitted that the land had been acquired from local residents and that compensation and rehabilitation had been provided.
The Court also sought clarification regarding the original ownership of the land. The AAI maintained that the property had been acquired from local residents as part of the airport expansion process.
Legal Issue
The principal issue before the High Court was whether interim permission could be granted to resume prayers at the mosque despite the security concerns raised by the airport authorities and the Centre.
The Court was also required to consider the competing claims concerning the right to practise religion and the restrictions imposed in an airport environment on grounds of aviation and national security.
The AAI argued that the right to practise religion did not create an absolute right to practise at a particular location, particularly where security requirements were involved.
Court Ruling
The AAI submitted that offering Namaz does not require access to a particular mosque and that prayers could be offered elsewhere. It contended that the mosque was situated on public land acquired for airport purposes.
The airport authorities further submitted that the decision to restrict access was not taken abruptly. According to the AAI, Civil Aviation authorities had communicated concerns regarding security deficiencies on May 13, 2026, following which a stakeholder meeting was held on May 23. Members of the Bankra Mosque Committee were also present at the meeting.
The AAI argued that concerns related to aviation security and the movement of people within the airport area, including matters affecting aircraft operations. It therefore opposed any interim order permitting access to the mosque.
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi, also opposed interim relief. The Centre submitted that the Constitution does not create a separate exemption for a mosque from land acquisition and raised security concerns concerning the mosque’s location near the airport runway.
The ASG also referred to a 2019 Prime Minister’s Office report, submitting that further expansion of the airport would not be possible if the mosque remained at its present location.
The Centre further submitted that the mosque did not have heritage status and argued that fundamental rights had to be considered in the context of public safety and national security requirements at an airport.
The petitioners disputed these submissions. They maintained that prayers had been offered at the mosque for around 136 years without any security-related incident. Their counsel also submitted that devotees had previously been subjected to security checks before being taken to the mosque for prayers.
The High Court had earlier declined to grant interim permission for prayers after the authorities raised aviation and national security concerns. The present hearing focused on the detailed submissions of the parties, with the matter next listed for October 9.
Implications
The proceedings raise questions concerning the balance between the right to practise religion under Article 25 of the Constitution and restrictions imposed in the interests of public order, morality, health and other constitutionally recognised limitations, particularly in a sensitive aviation-security zone.
The AAI’s position is that religious practice does not create an unrestricted right to access a particular place of worship where legitimate aviation-security concerns arise. The petitioners, on the other hand, seek continuation of access to a mosque where they claim prayers have been conducted for more than a century.
At this stage, the High Court has not finally determined the parties’ competing claims regarding the mosque, the acquisition of the land or the constitutional right to continue worship at the location. The next hearing on October 9 is expected to determine the further course of the interim application and the main proceedings.
The case adds to the legal discussion on religious freedom, land acquisition and public safety where places of worship are situated within or near critical infrastructure.
