Allahabad High Court: Namaz Cannot Be Restricted Solely on Grounds of Law & Order; Authorities Must Ensure Peaceful Religious Practice
JURISGRID NEWS NETWORK
15 March, 2026 12:19 PM (1 Mins read)JURISGRID NEWS NETWORK
15 March, 2026 12:19 PM (1 Mins read)Case: WRIT-C No. 5996 of 2026, Munazir Khan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others
The Allahabad High Court held that the number of persons allowed to offer Namaz cannot be restricted solely on the grounds of maintaining law and order. The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the State authorities to maintain law and order while ensuring that every community is able to peacefully practice its religion.
The observation came while hearing a writ petition filed by Munazir Khan, who alleged that during the holy month of Ramzan he and others were not allowed to offer Namaz at Plot No. 291 in Sambhal, where he claims a mosque exists.
According to the petitioner, the local administration permitted only 20 persons to offer Namaz at the site despite the expectation of a larger gathering during Ramzan. The restriction was imposed citing potential law and order concerns.
During the hearing, the State authorities argued that the limitation on the number of persons offering Namaz was necessary to maintain public order and prevent any disturbance.
However, the Court rejected this reasoning and observed that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the State. The Court further remarked that if the Superintendent of Police and the District Collector are unable to maintain law and order, they should either resign from their posts or seek a transfer.
The Court also clarified that prior permission from the authorities is required only when religious activities are conducted on public land or extend to public property. If the religious activity is confined to private property, such permission may not be necessary unless it affects public order.
During the proceedings, the State raised a property dispute and submitted that the land in question is registered in the name of another individual. The petitioner has not yet produced photographic evidence demonstrating the existence of a mosque at the disputed site.
The Court granted time to both parties to place relevant documents and evidence on record. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 16 March 2026.