SC: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Follow if an Officer is Discharged on the Same Charge  ||  SC Clarified the Distinction Between Arbitration “Seat” And “Venue” While Summarising Key Principles  ||  Supreme Court: Wife and Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry-Giving Based On Her Complaint  ||  SC: Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the Ground of Order II Rule 2 Bar  ||  Supreme Court Has Issued an SOP Prescribing Strict Timelines For Filing Legal Aid Appeals  ||  Madras HC: Dhurandhar 2 Release Cannot be Stalled Due to Objections From a Small Section  ||  Delhi HC: Lokpal May Form Prima Facie Opinion Before Show Cause Notice Without Prior Hearing  ||  Bom HC: Family Courts Cannot Casually Order a Spouse’s Medical Examination to Assess Mental Health  ||  Bombay HC: Child Care Leave Protects Motherhood and Denial Violates Rights of Mother and Child  ||  Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income    

Madrasah Taleemuddeen Islamic Institute vs. Chandra Giri Ellaurie and Another - (24 Nov 2022)

Constitution not only provide protection for different religious beliefs and affiliation, it also guaranteed the freedom to observe and manifest the different religious beliefs

Civil

The interdict application had been brought by Mr. Chandra Giri Ellaurie. In terms of the interdict the high court ordered that the sound of the ‘Call to Prayer’ (the Azaan) generated from the madrasah’s immovable property, should not be heard at Mr Ellaurie’s property. The appeal to the SCA therefore concerned the question of when noise emanating from a neighbour’s immovable property is actionable in law.

It was, in fact, Mr. Ellaurie who had to satisfy the requirements for the interdict sought, and to prove to the court, in particular, that the interference with his comfort was unreasonable. The madrasah had no responsibility to show that the Azaan was essential to its religious practice, as the high court had found.

Mr. Ellaurie’s application for an interdict failed to meet the legal requirements for the relief he sought. The SCA found that although Mr Ellaurie explained that the first of five daily Azaans was at 03h30, he did not explain what exactly the nature and level of the noise was, and how long it lasted in each instance. He tendered no evidence of what a reasonable Azaan would be in the circumstances. Instead, the evidence tendered was that of his profound dislike of Islam.

Apart from failing to provide evidence of unreasonable interference in the circumstances, Mr. Ellaurie placed himself within the realm of a specially or extraordinarily sensitive complainant. The reasonableness (or otherwise) of the Azaan could not be judged by his standards, the essence of which was a deep aversion to the Islamic faith. It had to be judged by the standard of an ordinary person living in Isipingo Beach. There was, at best, a paucity of evidence. Notably, the SCA found that the high Court erred in its conclusion that the Constitution provided no guarantee for religious practices. The Constitution did not only provide protection for different religious beliefs and affiliation, it also guaranteed the freedom to observe and manifest the different religious beliefs. The appeal must therefore succeed. It set the interdict aside.

Tags : NOISE   INTERDICT   REQUIREMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved