Allahabad High Court Reaffirms Constitutional Right to Private Religious Practice
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a landmark order, reiterating that there can be no impediment or embargo on prayers or religious functions being conducted within the private premises of an individual, regardless of their faith. This significant ruling underscores the fundamental right to religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Case Background and Court's Observations
The court's decision came while disposing of a petition filed by Munazir Khan, a resident of Sambhal. Khan had alleged that the local administration had imposed a cap, limiting the number of people allowed to offer prayers to just 20 during the holy month of Ramzan, despite expectations of a larger gathering at his premises, which he described as a mosque.
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan delivered the order on March 16, 2024. After examining photographs of the structure in question, the court opined that it was not a mosque as of the current date. However, the bench acknowledged that the place had been used previously for offering namaz and ruled that there should be no obstruction to devotees wishing to pray there.
Reliance on Precedent and Constitutional Principles
In its judgment, the court relied on the precedent set by the Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries ruling. The bench emphasized that the elucidation of Article 25 of the Constitution by this court should not be construed as granting any special status to adherents of Islam in India.
"Article 25 grants every religion an equal and immutable right to profess, practise and propagate its faith without any ‘ifs and buts', subject only to public order, morality and health," the court stated unequivocally. It further clarified that actions or speech that disturb public order or pit one religious community against another would fall outside constitutional protection and attract criminal liability.
Strong Rebuke to Administration and Broader Implications
During the proceedings on February 27, the high court had taken a stern stance against the local authorities. The bench asked the collector and police superintendent of Sambhal to resign or seek transfer if they were incompetent to enforce the rule of law. This came after the officials cited "law and order" concerns as justification for limiting the number of worshipers at the site.
The court eloquently articulated the broader significance of its ruling, stating, "The glory of this republic of 1.4 billion of the earth's humanity lies in her resilience and strength, arising from her historical, religious, cultural and linguistic diversity formalised by Article 25 of the Constitution."
Directives for Implementation and Circulation
To ensure compliance and widespread awareness, the court directed the state to ensure that a copy of this order reaches the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). This is for the purpose of circulation among relevant authorities, reinforcing the principle of equal religious rights for all citizens.
This judgment serves as a powerful reminder of India's constitutional commitment to secularism and religious equality, protecting private religious practices while balancing them with considerations of public order and harmony.
