Allahabad High Court Rebukes UP Government Over Mosque Prayer Restrictions
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for imposing restrictions on the number of people allowed to offer prayers at a mosque in Sambhal district, citing law and order concerns. In a significant ruling, the court dismissed the government's justification and asserted that it is the state's fundamental duty to ensure peaceful worship for all communities.
Court Questions Competence of Officials
In a sharp observation, the division bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan suggested that the Superintendent of Police (SP) and the district collector should either resign or seek transfers if they feel incapable of enforcing the rule of law. This statement came during a hearing on a petition filed by Munazir Khan from Sambhal district, challenging the government's order.
Details of the Case and Court's Order
The court's order, dated February 27, emphasized that every community has the right to worship peacefully in designated places. It clarified that on private property, no permission from the state is required for religious activities. The bench referenced previous rulings, stating that state involvement is only necessary when prayers or functions occur on public land or spill over onto public property.
According to the petitioner, authorities had permitted only 20 individuals to offer namaz at the mosque premises, despite expectations of a larger gathering during the holy month of Ramzan. The government counsel defended the restriction, citing potential law and order issues, but the court firmly rejected this argument.
Emphasis on Rule of Law and Religious Freedom
The court underscored that maintaining the rule of law in all circumstances is a core responsibility of the state. It highlighted the importance of allowing every community to practice its faith without undue interference, reinforcing constitutional protections for religious freedom.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the state government counsel to seek further instructions in the case and scheduled the next hearing for March 16. This ruling is seen as a reaffirmation of judicial commitment to safeguarding individual liberties against administrative overreach.
