Can’t Convert A House Into Prayer Hall Without Permission From Authorities: Madras High Court Reiterates

“It is clear from the above judgment that conducting prayer meetings in a prayer hall requires obtaining permission from the authority concerned under the relevant rules. Hence, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, have a prayer hall to conduct prayer meetings without obtaining any permission,” the court noted.

Justice Anand Venkatesh was referring to T. Wilson v. District Collector, Kanyakumari Dist and Ors. (2021) where a coordinate bench had held that a religious right cannot be claimed to be absolute and prayer meetings attended by huge crowds would require obtaining necessary permission under the relevant rules.

In the present case, the bench also rejected an undertaking given by the petitioner saying that the house prayer will be conducted peacefully without using any loudspeakers. The court said that mere non-usage of microphone and loudspeaker will not solve the issue and what was needed was proper permission from authorities.

“In the above undertaking affidavit, the petitioner has undertaken that he will conduct the house prayer in a peaceful manner without using loudspeaker and microphone. This undertaking given by the petitioner falls short of the undertaking that was expected by this Court. Mere non usage of loudspeaker and microphone will not solve the issue. The crux of the issue is that the petitioner cannot convert a house into a prayer hall to conduct prayer meetings,” the court said.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by Pastor L Joseph Wilson. Wilson submitted that he was running a trust in the name of “Word of God Ministries Trust”, established in 2007. He submitted that the property was purchased in 2023 and regular prayer meetings were held in the property ever since.

While so, based on a complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police. Though Wilson submitted an application for building permission and plan approval for construction of church, the same was rejected by the district collector. Meanwhile, the Tahsildar issued a notice asking Wilson to close down the prayer hall in 10 days. This notice was challenged in the present plea.

The collector submitted that Wilson could not run a prayer hall without permission. He submitted that prayer meeting was causing disturbance to adjacent neighbours in the locality. Thus, he sought for dismissing the plea.

The court relied on an earlier order of the High Court in which it was clearly held that house cannot be converted into prayer hall. Based on the same, the court asked the authorities to de-seal the premises only if it was not used as a prayer hall. The court thus dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Samidurai

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. M. Rajangam, Government Advocate

Case Title: Pastor L.Joseph Wilson v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 212

Case No: W.P.No.2036 of 2024