The Allahabad High Court has issued a contempt notice to the District Magistrate of Bareilly, Ravindra Kumar, and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya for allegedly preventing certain individuals, including petitioner Tarik Khan, from offering Namaz inside a private residence during Ramzan. The court took serious note of the allegations and observed that the officials’ actions appeared to have violated its earlier order passed on January 27 in the Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of U.P. case.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan. The Bench noted that in its January ruling, it had clearly stated that a citizen does not require permission to offer religious prayers within the private premises of his or her own property. The Court had emphasized that such practice is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practice religion. In that earlier order, the State had also admitted that there was no prohibition on holding religious prayer meetings on private property.
In the present case, Tarik Khan approached the High Court claiming that he and several others were detained on January 16 for allegedly offering Namaz inside an empty house owned by Reshma Khan “without permission.” The police had challaned them under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, now corresponding to Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. According to the petition, the prayers were confined strictly to private premises and did not disturb public order.
Following the High Court’s January 27 judgment in the Maranatha case, Khan submitted a representation to the District Magistrate and SSP on January 28 in person, and again on February 2 through registered post. In both communications, he sought permission to offer prayers at the same private premises during the month of Ramzan. His counsel, Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam, argued before the court that despite the clear legal position laid down by the High Court, the authorities kept the representations pending and failed to act.
The petitioner then moved the High Court seeking a direction that officials should not create any hindrance in offering Namaz during Ramzan. His counsel contended that seeking permission itself was unnecessary in light of the earlier ruling, as private religious prayers do not require administrative approval under the law.
Taking a stern view, the Bench asked the State counsel to obtain immediate instructions and issued notice to the concerned officials for allegedly flouting the court’s January 27 order. The matter has been posted for March 11 and has been listed among the top ten fresh cases. Importantly, the High Court directed that no coercive proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner until the next date of hearing.
The case now raises significant constitutional questions about the enforcement of religious freedoms at the ground level. Article 25 protects the right to practice religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The High Court’s earlier judgment had clarified that prayers within private premises fall within this protection unless they breach legal limits.
As the matter returns to the court on March 11, attention will remain on whether the Bareilly administration’s actions amounted to contempt and how the judiciary balances administrative authority with fundamental rights.