XAVIER Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri. Basil Attipetty, counsel for the review petitioner and Sri. Manuvilsan and Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, apart from hearing the learned Government Pleader extensively. The apprehension which was voiced before us by Mr. Basil Attipetty was that our judgment will stand in the way of even daily prayers being conducted in the privacy of the houses of the petitioners. The learned counsel drew our attention to the order in R.P. No. 143 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No. 6057 of 2011 (2012 (1) KLT 477). Binu Baby v. Dy. Superintendent of Police., 2012 1 KerLT 477 Sri. P. Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner in R.P. No. 750 of 2012 submitted that it may not be sufficient if the members of the immediate family alone are permitted to say their prayers in the respective houses. The persons living in the immediate neighbourhood also should be permitted. Sri. Attipetty would submit that Bible (Psalm 151) contemplates loud prayers accompanied by music, drums etc. The Psalm contains a command from the Almighty which the believers should be permitted to obey, so submitted Mr. Attipetty. Having regard to the submissions addressed at the Bar we are of the view that our judgment sought to be reviewed seeks modification to a certain extent. Accordingly we modify the judgment passed by us (sought to be reviewed in these RPs.) and say that our judgment does not stand in the way of the petitioners and members of their family conducting prayers in the privacy of their houses. It should however be ensured that the prayers are said/recited/read in a manner as not to generate noise pollution in the areas or any disturbance to the neighbours.