No Embargo On Prayers Within Private Premises; Article 25 Protects Right to Congregate And Not Incitement Of One Faith By Another: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner had raised a grievance that he was prevented from conducting prayers during Ramzan on his property, where, according to him, a Mosque existed.
While reaffirming that there can be no embargo on prayers, religious functions being conducted within the private premises of a person, the Allahabad High Court has held that Article 25 of the Constitution protects the right to congregate for worship to every religious denomination in this country, but the same does not accord protection to incitement of one faith by the other in the garb of prayer.
The High Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner had raised a grievance that he was prevented from conducting prayers during Ramzan on his property, where, according to him, a Mosque existed.
The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held, “Article 25 protects the right to congregate for worship to every religious denomination in this country but the same does not protect such acts and utterances which are devoid of the primary purpose of the congregation, which is prayer. By no stretch of imagination does article 25 accord protection to incitement of one faith by the other in the garb of prayer and that must be borne in mind by the adherents of all faiths/religions.”
“We are of the view that this petition can be disposed of by directing the State, yet again, to be fully cognizant of the order passed by this Court in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026:AHC:18364-DB, where on the instructions of State itself, this Court had directed that there can be no impediment/embargo with regard to prayers/religious function being conducted within the private premises of a person irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to”, it ordered.
Advocate Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner stated that he was prevented from conducting prayers during Ramzan on his property,where, according to him, a mosque existed. The state had disputed the ownership by referring to the revenue records. However, permission was granted only to the extent of twenty worshipers, who may offer Namaz. It was the petitioner's case that a larger number of persons may come to offer Namaz within the premises due to Ramzan. An order restricting the number of worshipers had been passed. The High Court held that in the case of private property, no permission was needed from the State to worship.
Pursuant to the last order of the High Court, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner, according to which the land and its possession were with the petitioner, and his grandfather Chhidda Khan, made a subsequent declaration to the Waqf in 1995, allegedly for the construction of a Mosque.
Reasoning
On perusal of the order, the Bench noted that it was passed in open Court with both sides present. The State took no objection to any discrepancy of the factual aspects relating to the number of worshipers who are permitted to offer Namaz in the said premises, when the order was being dictated. “Therefore, if the said order was imperfect on facts on account of misrepresentation by the petitioner, the counsels appearing for the State would have very well prevented this Court from recording that fact in the said order”, it added.
Considering the supplementary affidavit and photographs of the premises, where the prayers are to be conducted, the Bench opined that the structure is not a mosque, as of this date. The photograph showed that on the left-hand side, there was a two-storey structure, and on the right-hand side, there were arrangements for two washrooms. “The said place has been used for the purpose of offering Namaz earlier, there shall be no obstruction offered to the devotees for prayers to be offered at the same place”, it ordered.
The Bench disposed of the Petition by directing the State to be fully cognizant of the order passed by the High Court in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, (2026), where, on the instructions of the State itself, the Court had directed that there can be no impediment/embargo on prayers/religious function being conducted within the private premises of a person, irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to.
“Any objection taken by any person (individual or group) against prayers being conducted in a private space, should be taken cognizance of by the State and if need be, protection be accorded to the place of worship and the worshipers”, it ordered.
The Bench concluded the matter by observing, “The glory of this republic of 1.4 billion of the earth's humanity lies in her resilience and strength, arising from her historical, religious, cultural and linguistic diversity, like no other nation state on this planet with every major religion, culture and varied languages having co-existed for centuries in peace, harmony and mutual respect, formalised by article 25 of the Constitution of India after the same came into force.”
Cause Title: Munazir Khan v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:52685-DB)