Right to pray does not mean right to visit any place of worship: HC

The Navy has since 2009 restricted the area for security reasons.

“Why this particular temple? It means you want to create trouble,” Justice Deshmukh said. “There are many Hanuman temples. Any Hanuman mandir is good enough.”

Petitioner Mangesh Shirshat’s lawyer argued the structures are on BMC land and the Navy should prove they are in the Cantonment area. Asked about the petitioners’ rights under the Indian Constitution,their lawyer said Article 25 gives them the right to profess,practise and propagate religion.

“But that does not give the right to visit any temple,” Justice Deshmukh said. The lawyer said it is a public temple; the judge said,“It is not a public temple,it is God’s temple.”

Additional solicitor general Darius Khambata said the first petition had been only for access to the dargah but now the petitioner wants access to the temple too. Khambata said as per an earlier court order,the Naval authorities had given them a hearing after which an order was passed restraining the public from entering these premises.

The petitioners argued this is discrimination another dargah and the U S Club in the vicinity are used by the public.

Khambata said Naval officers have been maintaining the dargah and have appointed a maulana to look after religious activities.

“This is a provocative litigation. Everybody knows that God doesn’t reside in any particular place,” the court observed. Justice Deshpande asked why the petitioner should need to come all the way to Colaba when he lives in Central Mumbai.