Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a man who was prevented by police authorities from offering Namaz, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan, JJ., rejected the contention that the petitioner was restrained due to law and order concerns, holding that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails under every circumstance. Accordingly, the Court sought response from the State.
Background
The petitioner contended that he was prevented from conducting prayers during Ramzan at a certain gate of a mosque. The petitioner did not file any photographs of a mosque or a place of worship within which the Namaz was supposed to be offered.
The State has disputed the ownership of the said gate, as it was allegedly owned by two men, according to the revenue records. Furthermore, permission to offer Namaz was granted only to the extent of twenty worshipers. The State further contended that due to the perceived law and order situation, such an order restricting the number of worshipers was passed.
Analysis
The Court outrightly rejected the State’s contention of a perceived law of order situation, stating that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails under every circumstance.
“If the local authorities, i.e., Superintendent of Police and Collector, feel that the law and order situation could arise because of which they want to limit the number of worshipers within the premises. They should either resign from their post or seek transfer outside Sambhal if they feel they are not competent enough to enforce the rule of law.”
The Court further remarked that it is the duty of the State to ensure that every community can offer worship peacefully in the designated place of worship, and if it is private property, people should be able to perform worship without any permission from the State. The Court also reiterated that only where prayers or religious functions have to be held on public land or spill over the public property, the involvement of the State is essential, and permission must be sought.
Accordingly, time was granted for the State to reply and for the petitioner to provide images of the gate in question.
[Munazir Khan v. State of U.P., WRIT – C No. 5996 of 2026, decided on 27-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui
For the respondent: Standing Counsel