By the Court.—The petitioners assert a right for defining a place inside the premises of the new building of the High Court at Lucknow for offering prayers, particularly in view of the fact that no place has been earmarked as a Temple or Gurudwara for the majority of the visitors including Lawyers as was available in the Old High Court Campus Building at Qaiserbagh. The petitioners assert that in view of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of India such a place should be earmarked and allocated within the High Court campus, as without a place for worship of their choice, they are being deprived of their right to practice and profess Hindu Religion that amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. They contend that not only the Lawyers of different communities but also the litigants and the employees forming a sizeable majority, and having most of their time to spend here, require such a place which would also enhance the ethos and help in maintaining the tolerant atmosphere of the community, thereby protecting the rights of it’s citizens and also upholding the rule of law under the Constitution. It is not only the right to worship that the petitioners assert but Sri H. S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is also the obligation of the State to provide such facilities allowing the petitioners and others visiting the High Court to profess their religion in a particular manner and be able to exercise such rights within the premises itself.

2. This argument has been resisted by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Sri Upendra Nath Misra for the High Court and by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India alike. Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Union of India has urged that Article 25 allows the freedom of conscience and free profession and practice as also propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this Part, i.e., Part-III of the Constitution of India. He contends that there is a freedom to do so but Article 25 of the Constitution nowhere confers any right to any person to exercise this choice at a public place or premises, particularly a premise that represents one of the pillars of secular democracy in this country.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the High Court have also adopted the same arguments and urge that no such right can be asserted to allot a particular place for worship within the premises of the High Court which is a public building for the cause of justice alone. The insistence of practicing this right within the premises is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution nor is there any obligation on the State to provide such a place as a place of convenience or facility to the petitioners.

4. The aforesaid rival contentions therefore give rise to the moot question as to whether any individual who visits the High Court or who has to perform his duty within the precincts of the High Court can insist for a common place for offering prayers or worshiping his religion. It is also to be seen as to whether such a premises would be a cause for the petitioners to assert such a right under the Constitution of India. It goes without saying that if such rights are being asserted by one particular community, the same would also give a corresponding right in favour of the followers of other religions and people of other communities. The Court has therefore to view the matter from this perspective from the top of the hill and with an eagle’s eye in the background of the provisions of the Constitution and the purpose for which the new building of the High Court has been constructed.

5. We having given a serious thought to the issues raised and have attempted to view this problem in the larger perspective of discipline within the premises of the High Court, the respect for harmony amongst all, the purpose of the construction o