The court upheld the right to peaceful religious practice and reaffirmed the necessity of police protection against unfounded threats.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for the following reliefs :-

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate, effective and continuous police protection to the 1st Petitioner Masjid to ensure the peaceful and uninterrupted conduct of all religious activities, including daily prayers, Friday congregational prayers, and Ramzan-related observances.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary and effective police protection to safeguard the life and personal liberty of the 2nd Petitioner from threats, intimidation and unlawful acts of Respondents 4 to 7 and their associates.

(iii) Issue appropriate directions to Respondents 1 to 3 to take preventive action in accordance with law against Respondents 4 to 7 so as to prevent breach of peace within and in the immediate vicinity of the mosque premises.

(iv) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits;

2. Petitioners claim police protection for the conduct of prayers at the Nadapuram Valiya Juma'ath Masjid, which is claimed to be a historical congregational mosque, having a history of more than 200 years.

3. According to the petitioner, the 5^th respondent has raised an objection regarding an alleged demolition of his father's grave and its replacement with a new grave at the same location. Alleging that he had noticed such an alteration, 5^th respondent started raising obstructions on the conduct of daily prayers at the mosque. Petitioners deny the allegation of any alteration and contends that there is no factual foundation for such an allegation and no grave has been demolished or relocated in violation of any religious norms or established procedures. It is also asserted that the burial ground is maintained strictly in accordance with customary Islamic practices under the supervision of the Committee.

4. When the matter came up for consideration on 17.02.2026, this Court passed an interim order, directing the 3^rd respondent to afford adequate protection to the first petitioner Masjid for the prayers to be conducted during Friday and to those during the evening periods, without any obstruction or disturbance from respondents 4 to 7.

5. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of respondents 4 to 7. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions submitted that an enquiry was conducted based on the allegations of respondents 4 to 7 and it was identified during the enquiry that the grave digger himself gave a statement that he had not committed any act, as alleged by respondents 4 to 7 and that he had not demolished any existing grave.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that since the instructions on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 reveals that the allegation of altering the grave, as raised by respondents 4 to 7, is without any factual foundation and the interim order dated 17.02.2026 can be made absolute. Ordered accordingly.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.