No Durga Puja on Calcutta High Court Rooftop, But Namaz to be continued.

No Durga Puja on Calcutta High Court Rooftop: Division Bench Rejects PIL, Keeps Mum on Namaj on High Court’s Rooftop.

Chief Justice Ghuge questions maintainability of petition; plea had sought permission for Sharad Sadhana and Durga Puja on the High Court premises

Sankirtan Das | HENB | Kolkata | Sept 25, 2026:: The Calcutta High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking permission to organise Durga Puja on the rooftop of the main High Court building, with Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge observing that the matter did not qualify as a genuine Public Interest Litigation.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice R.V. Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Roy dismissed the petition, which sought permission for the performance of Sharad Sadhana—worship associated with the autumn festival—and the organisation of Durga Puja on the rooftop of the High Court premises.

However, the Chief Justice took no action regarding the existing practice of offering Namaz and the presence of a temporary prayer room (mosque) on the High Court rooftop. A video that recently surfaced on social media purportedly shows Muslim individuals offering Namaz beneath a temporary structure on the roof of the Calcutta High Court.

The issue arose after the Bar Association approached the Chief Justice seeking permission to conduct the religious observance and reportedly proposed the rooftop of the main High Court building as the venue. Advocate Sanjay Ghosh subsequently approached the court through a PIL, arguing that the constitutional principle of religious neutrality required equal treatment of different faiths.

Some social media users described such alleged illegal and unauthorised Namaz offerings on the rooftop of the Calcutta High Court as a stark example of what they termed highest level “land jihad” within government premises.

PIL challenged alleged disparity in access to religious observance

According to the petitioner’s submissions, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion while requiring the State to maintain neutrality among faiths. Ghosh argued that this principle should also be reflected in the treatment of religious practices within public institutions.

The petition claimed that members of a particular religious community had been permitted to offer Namaz on Fridays at a rooftop location associated with the High Court complex.

On that basis, the petitioner sought permission for a Hindu religious observance, including Durga Puja and the proposed installation of a Bharat Mata Mandir.

The petition further referred to a temporary structure which, according to the petitioner, was being used for Muslim prayers on the rooftop of a building adjacent to the main High Court complex. A video circulated on social media was also cited in support of the claim.

The allegations concerning the prayer facility and its status, however, were part of the petitioner’s case and should be distinguished from findings formally recorded by the court.

Chief Justice questions PIL character of petition

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Ghuge reportedly observed that the matter could not properly be treated as a Public Interest Litigation and was instead concerned with the interests of a particular group.

The observation came amid broader criticism from the Chief Justice concerning the filing of PILs without adequate supporting material. On September 23, Justice Ghuge had warned lawyers that petitions lacking sufficient documentation could waste judicial time and indicated that the court could impose penalties in appropriate cases.

In the present matter, the Bench ultimately declined to entertain the petition as a PIL and dismissed it.

Questions raised over alleged prayer arrangement

The dismissal has nevertheless brought renewed attention to the petitioner’s allegation concerning religious prayers at a rooftop location associated with the High Court complex.

The petitioner had argued that if a religious group was permitted to use such a space for regular prayers, comparable consideration should be given to a Hindu religious observance. The court’s dismissal of the PIL, however, did not itself establish the factual allegations concerning the alleged prayer facility or amount to a judicial finding that any particular religious group had been granted preferential treatment.

Statement attributed to Beef Ranjan Bhattacharya

Reacting to the controversy, lawyer and controverstial Leftist leader Beef Ranjan Bhattacharya (name changed as he is well known by this) was quoted as saying that there was “nothing there” and that “people who became tired while working simply went there to get some fresh air”.

His comment was made in the context of the controversy over the alleged use of the rooftop space and has been cited by those debating whether the structure in question constitutes a prayer facility.

The episode has consequently generated a wider discussion over the use of institutional premises for religious activities, the principle of equal treatment of faiths, and the legal threshold that a petition must meet before it can be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation.
…
_Agency Inputs.