Allahabad HC rejects plea for regular namaz at Sambhal property

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking permission for regular Namaz at a Sambhal property, ruling that religious freedom under Articles 25–26 does not permit converting private or public land into unregulated congregational spaces affecting public order

New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea seeking permission and police protection for offering regular Namaz at an alleged private property in Sambhal district, holding that the right to practise religion does not extend to converting private premises into an unregulated congregational space.

A Division Bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad passed the order while rejecting a writ petition filed by one Aseen, who claimed that the authorities were restraining prayers on a parcel of land in the village Ikona.

---

The petitioner asserted ownership over the land on the basis of a registered gift deed dated June 16, 2023, and contended that he and other worshippers were being illegally restrained from offering Namaz on the premises.

He further alleged that the obstruction was arbitrary and carried out in collusion with certain social elements, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Constitution.

However, the Uttar Pradesh government opposed the plea and submitted that the land in question, Khata No. 613, Gata No. 629, is recorded as Abadi land under Category Shreni-6(2), meant for public use, and that the petitioner had failed to establish ownership. It was further submitted that Namaz had traditionally been offered at the site only on specific occasions, such as Eid, and that the petitioner was now attempting to introduce regular congregational prayers involving outsiders, which could disturb communal harmony in the village.

After considering the rival submissions, the Allahabad High Court framed the issue as to whether and to what extent rights under Articles 25 and 26 extend to congregational religious activities on public land or private premises.

Private property may be used for personal and limited religious activity so long as it remains genuinely private, occasional and non-disruptive; however, once such use extends to regular or organised congregational activity involving persons beyond a limited private sphere, it falls outside the protected domain and may attract regulatory control, the Justice Srivastava-led Bench observed.

It added that the right to practise religion is not absolute and remains subject to public order, morality and health. Freedom, in a constitutional society, is always accompanied by responsibility towards others. The Constitution protects the right to practice religion, but it also makes it clear that this right is subject to public order, morality and health, the Allahabad High Court said.

It further held that no person or group can claim recurring religious use of public land as a matter of right. Public land is meant for common use, and no individual or group can claim a right to use it as an exclusive or recurring religious space, the Justice Srivastava-led Bench said.

Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on previous judgments protecting prayers on private premises, it clarified that such protections are limited to bona fide private worship and do not extend to converting private land into an unregulated public religious venue.

Where the activity extends beyond that sphere and begins to affect the public domain, lawful regulation follows, the Justice Srivastava-led Bench observed, adding that authorities are not required to wait for an actual disturbance before acting.

Where an activity is likely to affect public order, the State is entitled to act in advance. The test is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences, it said. On the facts of the case, the Allahabad High Court held that the pleadings were vague and unsupported by material particulars, with no specific incident, date, time or identifiable act attributed to any authority.

It further held that the revenue records showed the land to be public land and that the petitioner title claim based on the gift deed could not displace official records. Even otherwise, if the land is assumed to be private, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. The record shows that he is not protecting an existing practice, but seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings, the Justice Srivastava-led Bench observed.

Concluding that no enforceable legal right had been made out, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition. This Court cannot grant relief on such a basis, particularly where the matter has implications for public order and social harmony, it said.