The High Court at Calcutta has formally clarified that no mosque exists on the rooftop of its main building, following a comprehensive inspection conducted by the Court Registry. The findings, presented to a division bench led by Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai, confirm that the area in question contains only a small, locked room utilized for the storage of religious literature and personal items. This ruling brings immediate resolution to public interest concerns regarding the alleged construction of a religious structure atop the high-security judicial premises.

The inspection was ordered on September 30, 2026, in response to a petition filed by Sanjay Ghosh, which prompted the bench to direct the Registry to ascertain the true nature of the rooftop space. The resulting report, submitted with ten pages of detailed color photography, demonstrates that the room—while equipped with mattresses, plastic chairs, stand fans, and various domestic belongings like buckets and water pitchers—does not function as a place of public worship. Instead, it appears to have served as a private reading area for individuals of the Mohammedan faith, yet its existence remained entirely outside the control and oversight of the court administration.

Security Protocol and Custody of Keys

A significant point of concern during the inspection involved the discovery that the keys to the two wooden gates of this room were held by a practicing advocate, Ezaz Hossain. During the site visit, Registry officials found the doors locked, and it was only after the subsequent arrival of the advocate—who occupies Bar Association Room No. 12—that the premises were opened for examination. The bench expressed immediate surprise and disapproval regarding the fact that keys to any portion of the high-security court complex were in the possession of an individual private practitioner rather than the court’s own security detail.

In its order, the court emphasized the absolute necessity of administrative control over all areas within the court building. The bench stated, “All the keys to the rooms/doors/Court Halls/staircases, Court premises etc. are to be in the custody of the High Court Administration.” By allowing a third party to maintain physical control over an area on the rooftop, the security integrity of the institution was effectively bypassed. This realization has triggered a broader review of existing safety measures and access controls, as the court is now scrutinizing how such a situation was permitted to persist.

Judicial Oversight and Institutional Accountability

To address the breach of protocol, the division bench has formally impleaded Advocate Ezaz Hossain as a respondent in the ongoing litigation. The court has directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the order to the advocate, mandating that he provide a formal explanation as to how the keys came into his custody. This procedural step reflects the court’s resolve to ensure that no individual possesses unauthorized access to court property, regardless of their professional standing within the bar.

Furthermore, the court has taken a preemptive approach to rectifying these internal security lapses by involving its specialized oversight body. The Registry has been instructed to transmit copies of the inspection report and current orders to the High Court’s Security Committee, which comprises serving judges. The bench has requested that the committee provide expert guidance on refining security measures for the entire complex, particularly regarding the centralized management of keys for all rooms and staircases. The committee’s observations are expected to be presented in a sealed envelope at the next hearing.

Future Procedural Steps

The bench’s decision to move beyond the immediate issue of the rooftop room reflects a broader commitment to ensuring the sanctity and security of the Calcutta High Court. By mandating that the Security Committee review the premises, the court is positioning itself to reform any gaps in oversight that allowed the rooftop area to remain in private hands. This move signifies that the court intends to treat the incident not merely as a localized issue, but as a catalyst for strengthening institutional accountability.

The matter remains under active consideration, with the bench scheduling the next hearing for December 14, 2026. On that date, the court expects a full report from the Security Committee detailing its recommendations for enhanced security. For the present, the room has been identified through the Registry’s documentation, and its contents have been cataloged and secured. The court’s insistence on a transparent and swift resolution highlights its dedication to maintaining control over all aspects of its infrastructure, ensuring that court premises are governed exclusively by the administration, and that no unauthorized parties hold keys or discretionary access to restricted areas within the judicial complex. All parties are now tasked with compliance, and the next session will focus on the explanation provided by the respondent and the subsequent security reforms proposed by the internal committee.