The Bombay High Court, led by Justices BP Colabawalla and FP Pooniwalla, rejected an urgent request by a taxi drivers' association seeking a temporary place to offer namaz at Mumbai’s domestic airport during Ramzan. The court said that airport security concerns cannot be compromised.

Request to Restore Demolished Prayer Shed:
The Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Association had urged the court to either restore a prayer shed near Terminal 1 that was demolished in April last year by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), or provide about 1,500 square feet of space somewhere inside the airport premises for prayers.

The association said the prayer shed had existed for around 30 years and there had never been any security problems.

Lawyers Raise Difficulties After Demolition:
Advocate Shahzad Naqvi, appearing for the drivers, told the court that the demolition had created difficulties for them, especially during the holy month of Ramzan. He also said the shed had originally been approved by authorities.

Another lawyer, Advocate SB Talekar, pointed out that there is a temple nearby and questioned why security concerns were being raised only about the prayer shed, especially after some complaints were made.

State Cites Security Concerns:
The State opposed the request. Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan told the court that the airport area is a high-security zone with VVIP movement and heavy public footfall. The State also informed the court that at least three mosques are located within walking distance of the airport.

Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, appearing for Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), also said the earlier prayer shed was very close to a VIP gate, which created a security risk.

The bench noted that it had earlier asked the authorities to review possible alternative locations. After the review, the authorities said that seven different spots were examined, but none were suitable because of security concerns and ongoing construction work. Because of this report, the court refused to grant any temporary relief.

Court: Security Comes First
During the hearing, the bench said, “When there is a security risk, security comes first; irrespective of religion. When it comes to security, we will not compromise one bit.”

The court also rejected the argument about allowing the prayer shed because a temple exists nearby. It said, “Even if we assume there is a temple, two rights do not make a wrong. If someone comes to us saying that structure is illegal, we will order them to demolish that structure also.”

The bench also acknowledged the important role played by taxi drivers who serve passengers at the airport, but refused to grant any relief.

Case Details: Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Association v. Adani Airport Ltd & Ors.