The Allahabad High Court has ruled that no permission is required to hold a religious prayer meeting inside private premises in Uttar Pradesh, reaffirming the constitutional right to religious freedom.
The court, however, made it clear that if a prayer meeting extends to a public road or any public property, the organisers must inform the police and obtain permission as required under the law.
The observation came while hearing two similar petitions filed by Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust, both Christian organisations. They had approached the court after authorities did not respond to their representations seeking permission to conduct prayer meetings inside their private premises.
A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan disposed of the petitions after considering the Uttar Pradesh government’s submission that there is no legal requirement to seek permission for holding prayers within private property.
The court noted that the state government had clearly stated there was no prohibition on conducting religious prayer meetings inside private premises. It also recorded the government’s assurance that equal protection of law is provided to all citizens without discrimination on the basis of religion or any other factor.
“There is no prohibition on the petitioner to conduct a religious prayer meeting within his private premises. Equal protection of the law is accorded by instrumentalities of the state to all citizens across the state without discrimination with regard to religion or any other consideration,” the court observed.
The bench further said that seeking permission for such prayer meetings is not required under law, as it falls within the scope of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens.
The court accepted the submission that the petitioners only intended to organise religious worship within their own premises and held that they are free to do so according to their convenience, without any approval from the state.
In its order dated January 27, the high court added that if protection is required during such gatherings, the state authorities are free to decide the manner in which it should be provided.
