Allahabad HC issues contempt notices to DM, SSP for rejecting namaz at private premises

When there need not a permission to hold religious congregation and prayer in private properties, a petition from a Muslim man seeking court permission to pray at his own property after the Bareilly District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police rejection for the same led the Allahabad High Court to order issuance of contempt notices against them, for failure to act in accordance with its January order.

The division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and SA Siddharth Nandan passed the direction while hearing a petition filed by Tarik Khan, who had approached the court seeking protection and permission to offer namaz at his private premises in Bareilly ahead of the month of Ramzan, contending that despite the earlier ruling of the High Court, the local administration had rejected his application for holding joint prayers.

Explaining the circumstances that compelled him to move the court, the petitioner apprised the bench that police personnel had, last month, picked up 12 men for questioning on allegations that they were offering namaz at the same premises, and his counsel, Rajesh Kumar Gautam, submitted that the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police had refused permission in disregard of the legal position already settled by the High Court.

The counsel further informed the court that the petitioner had challenged the administrative decision as being contrary to the order dated January 27, delivered in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of UP, wherein the court had categorically held that no permission is required for conducting religious prayers within one’s private property, provided that such congregation does not spill over onto public roads or public spaces.

In its February 12 order, the bench requested the State counsel to seek instructions in the matter and directed that, till the next date of listing, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed, while it also listed the case for further hearing on March 11.

The January 27 ruling had clarified that while the manner of providing protection lies within the discretion of the State, it is nonetheless a concomitant duty of the authorities to safeguard the property, rights and life of the petitioner, thereby underscoring that administrative action cannot override judicial pronouncements.