The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order by the local administration in Uttar Pradesh’s Badaun district that had prohibited the offering of namaz inside a mosque located on private property, holding that there is no legal restriction on conducting religious prayers within private premises and that doing so is a fundamental right.
A division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vivek Saran, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Badaun resident Alisher, directed the authorities not to interfere in any manner with prayers being offered within the petitioners’ premises. The court made clear that police retain the authority to intervene only if law and order situations arise on public roads.
What the Petition Said
The petition sought a directive ensuring that the petitioners and other members of their community were not obstructed from offering namaz at the Waqf Masjid Raza, located in Behat Javi village in the Bilsi Tehsil of Badaun. The petitioners stated that the mosque stands on their private property identified by Khata Number 1081. Their counsel argued that no law prohibits religious prayers on private property and relied on a January 27 judgment by another division bench in the Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries case, which had held that conducting religious activities on private property does not require prior government permission.
Sambhal Case: Court Asks If Hindus Can Be Stopped From Praying at Home
In a separate but related development, the same Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, which has been hearing the Sambhal namaz restriction case, made sharp oral observations on Sunday while questioning the UP government’s counsel on whether restrictions on prayer on private property could apply equally to all communities.
“How can Muslims be stopped from offering Namaz on the roof of their homes? The rule of law must treat all citizens equally, and the Constitution must prevail,” Justice Sreedharan remarked.
Questioning Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, who appeared for the UP government, Justice Sreedharan asked pointedly, “Are such restrictions placed in temples? A stampede occurred at the Maha Kumbh Mela, did you restrict 2 persons per 3 square feet? If Hindus are praying in their houses, can they be stopped from doing so?”
The bench clarified that the State has the authority to intervene only if religious activities spill onto public roads, not when they are conducted strictly within private property.
Petitioner’s Claims Face Scrutiny
However, the bench also raised serious questions about the petitioner’s own submissions in the Sambhal case. Perusing the affidavit on record, the court noted discrepancies between the plot area and property descriptions provided by the petitioner. When asked what currently stands on the land, the petitioner’s counsel submitted newspaper cuttings rather than actual photographs of the site.
Justice Sreedharan noted that the structure in question was not a mosque and could not even properly be called a house, describing it as merely a room. The bench pulled up the petitioner for the lack of clarity and warned that the petition could be dismissed with heavy costs if the deficiencies were not addressed.
Justice Nandan also remarked during the hearing that it must be ensured that after the offering of namaz, no incendiary speeches are made at the site, and that such speeches are punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
