LUCKNOW: In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court recently expressed that religious prayers could be organised on private property if they were occasional and non-disruptive.
However, it noted that when the property is used for regular or organised congregational activities, it may invite government regulation.
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad, added that places where the activity in the private property turns regular, organised, or large in scale, it might amount to a change in use of the premises and might be subject to applicable laws, including planning and local regulations.
The Bench, meanwhile, dismissed a petition filed by Aseen, a resident of Ikauna under Gunnaur Tehsil in Sambhal district.
The petitioner had sought relief in connection with the use of a piece of land for offering Namaz in a village of Sambhal district. The Bench also made it clear that the public land could not be used unilaterally by any single party for religious purposes and added that all individuals had equal rights over such property, and its exclusive use was not legally permissible.
The Bench added that the State was bound to ensure equal access and could not permit preferential or exclusive use of such a land.
Significantly, the order passed by the Bench also offered a clarification over the High Court’s previous decisions (delivered by a Justice Atul Sreedharan-led bench), including Munazir Khan vs State of UP & others and Marantha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of UP.
In that case, it was held that a citizen did not require any kind of permission under the law to offer religious prayers.
The High Court, in its latest decision, however, clarified that those decisions could not be read as laying down that organised or regular congregational activity on private premises was completely immune to regulation.
In fact, the petitioner had claimed the ownership of the private property based on a June 2023 gift deed and argued that the respondent authorities were restraining such prayers, thereby violating his fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The State, on the other hand, claimed that the land in question was recorded as Abadi land meant for public use and that the petitioner had no ownership rights over the same.
It was also apprised to the Bench that Namaz had traditionally been offered at the said location only on the occasion of Eid, and that no restriction was imposed on such established practice.
However, the state opposed the petitioner's attempt to introduce regular large-scale congregational prayers by inviting persons from within and outside the village.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Bench noted that while the Constitution protected the right to practice religion, it also made it clear that the right was subject to public order, morality and health.
The Court added that public land was meant for everyone and was controlled by law, and no individual could claim a right to use it for regular religious gatherings.
Regarding private religious activities on private land, the Court observed that private prayers, family worship, and other limited devotional activities ordinarily fell within the protected domain of religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
However, it clarified that this protection was confined to activity that was truly private, occasional, and non-disruptive, and it did not extend to transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue.
The Court noted that the law did not require the authorities to wait for an actual disturbance to occur, and it was entitled to act in advance where an activity could affect public order.
On the merits of the case, the Bench noted that the land in question was recorded as public land and the claim of ownership was based only on vague boundary descriptions.
Even otherwise, the Court said, if the land was assumed to be private, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief as he was introducing a new religious practice.
