The court observed that private property may be used for limited religious activities, but once it extends to organised congregational activity, the State can exercise control.
The court said no individual or group can claim a right to use public land exclusively for recurring religious activities (Representative image)
The Allahabad High Court rejected a man’s plea to offer namaz on private land, saying the offering of religious prayers on private property was not completely immune to regulation and could be subject to regulatory control if it involved organised congregational activities.
A division bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad rejected a writ petition by Aseen, who sought a direction to the authorities to provide security and permission to offer namaz in a village of Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district.
The bench observed that private property may be used for personal and limited religious activities, and once it extends to regular or organised congregational activity, it falls outside the protected domain and may attract regulatory control.
The bench also clarified that no individual or group can claim a right to use public land exclusively for recurring religious activities, and the State is bound to ensure equal access and cannot permit preferential or exclusive use of such land.
‘Right To Practice Religion Not Unlimited’
The State had argued that the land, which the petitioner sought for offering namaz, was registered as abadi land – meant for public use. It said namaz has traditionally been offered at the location only on the occasion of Eid without any restrictions, but now there was an attempt to introduce regular large-scale prayers by inviting people from outside the village.
Opposing the petitioner’s attempt to allow large-scale prayers on private property, the court noted that while the Constitution protects the right to practice religion, it also makes it clear that this right is subject to public order, morality and health.
“It is not an unlimited right. It cannot be exercised in a way that affects others or disturbs the normal functioning of public life. As is often said, one person’s freedom ends where it begins to affect someone else,” it said.
What Did HC Say On State Regulation?
The bench also clarified the court’s earlier decisions, where a bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan held that a citizen does not require any kind of permission under the law to offer religious prayers.
“They [earlier verdicts] recognise a limited protection, namely where prayer remains confined to a private, non-disruptive setting. Where the activity extends beyond that sphere and begins to affect the public domain, lawful regulation follows. These decisions do not confer a right to convert private premises into an unregulated congregational space,” the bench said.
The court observed that limited devotional activity ordinarily fell under the protected domain of constitutionally-protected religious freedoms, but they don’t extend to transforming any private premises into a public religious venue.
“Where an activity is likely to affect public order, the State is entitled to act in advance. The test is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences. This approach is consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all religions and equal application of law,” it added.
Meanwhile, Iqbal Ansari, the former plaintiff in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case of Ayodhya, supported the High Court’s decision and said mosques were built specifically for prayers, so there was no need to use public land for the specific purpose.
Prayagraj, India, India
Read More
