‘Right to practice religion not unlimited’: Allahabad HC rejects plea for namaz on ‘public’ land

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a man’s petition seeking directions to the Sambhal district magistrate to allow him to offer namaz on what he claimed was his private land.

The Uttar Pradesh government, however, claimed that the land was for public use and that the man, Aseen, did not hold the legal title for it.

A bench comprising Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad said in its judgement on April 6 that the right to practice religion is subject to public order and is not unlimited, adding that it cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with the rights of others.

In his petition, Aseen sought directions to the district magistrate to provide security and permission to offer prayers at what he claimed were his private premises at Ikona village in Sambhal’s Gunnaur, The Indian Express reported.

The petitioner claimed ownership of the land based on a gift deed from June 2023 and argued that the authorities were restraining prayers and violating his fundamental right to freedom of religion.

During the proceedings, Aseem’s counsel referred to four orders issued by the court on separate petitions between January and March that sought similar relief, The Indian Express reported.

These orders had held that no permission was needed for holding a religious prayer meeting on private property in Uttar Pradesh.

On the other hand, the state government claimed that the land is recorded as Abadi land, which is land meant for public use. The gift deed mentioned by Aseen does not disclose any identifiable revenue particulars and cannot confer any legal title upon him, it added.

The state government also told the bench that namaz had traditionally been offered at the site only on the occasion of Eid and added that no restriction had been imposed on this established practice.

However, the petitioner was attempting to introduce regular large-scale congregational prayers by inviting persons from within and outside the village, the state government claimed.

In its order, the court noted that the previous orders issued by it between January and March court protected bona fide prayer within private premises. The bench held that such personal religious exercise cannot be arbitrarily interfered with.

However, these decisions cannot be read as laying down that organised or regular congregational activity on private premises is “wholly immune from regulation”, the court said.

“They recognise a limited protection, where prayer remains confined to a private, non-disruptive setting,” it said. “Where the activity extends beyond that sphere and begins to affect the public domain, lawful regulation follows”.

It added that the decisions cited by the petitioner “do not confer a right to convert private premises into an unregulated congregational space.”

The court noted that law does not require the authorities to wait for an actual disturbance to occur, adding that the state government is entitled to act in advance where an activity is likely to affect public order.

It said that the test is not the religious nature of the activity but its public consequences.

The court said that it found that the land in question is recorded as public land based on the material placed on record.

“When it comes to public land, the position is straightforward,” the judges said. “Public land is meant for everyone and is controlled by law. No individual can claim a right to use it for regular religious gatherings.”

The judges said that the record showed that the petitioner is not protecting an existing practice but seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings, including persons from within and outside the village.

This expansion beyond a limited private sphere falls outside the protected domain and is subject to regulation, it added.

The court dismissed the petition and said that it cannot grant relief, especially where the matter has “implications for public order and social harmony”.