The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant ruling, stating that public land cannot be claimed for exclusive religious use by any individual or group. The court emphasized that such activities, including offering Namaz, must remain subject to public order and the rights of others.
Division Bench's Observation
The observation was made by a Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prasad while dismissing a petition filed by Asin, a resident of Ikauna under Gunnaur Tehsil in Sambhal district. The petitioner had sought relief in connection with the use of land for offering Namaz.
Key Points of the Ruling
The court clarified that public land cannot be unilaterally used by any single party for religious purposes. It added that all individuals have equal rights over such property, and its exclusive use is not legally permissible. The Bench reiterated the broader legal position, stating that the right to practice religion is subject to public order and cannot be exercised in a way that infringes upon the rights of others. Religious freedom is not absolute and remains subject to the rights of others.
Reference to Earlier Rulings
Referring to earlier rulings, including the Munazir Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others case, the court noted that while bona fide religious practices within private premises are protected and cannot be subjected to arbitrary interference, such protection does not amount to absolute carte blanche for organized or regular collective religious activities. When such activities extend beyond private boundaries and begin impacting the public domain, regulatory intervention by the State becomes permissible. The court further observed that it cannot be interpreted that there is an unrestricted right to convert private premises into unregulated collective spaces for regular gatherings.
Limits on Namaz Gatherings
In examining the present case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was not seeking to preserve an existing long-standing tradition but was instead attempting to initiate regular collective gatherings involving participants from within and outside the village. The court observed that historically, Namaz at the site had been offered only on specific occasions such as Eid, and held that any expansion beyond this limited practice would fall outside the scope of protected activity and would therefore be open to regulation.
State's Authority to Intervene
The court further remarked that the State has the authority to intervene where activities deviate from established traditions and affect public order. The Bench also stated that even if the land were considered private property, the petitioner would still not be entitled to the relief sought. In its order, the court added that if public land is illegally transferred and later used to demand organized Namaz gatherings, such a sale deed would be considered illegal and not sustainable in law.
This ruling underscores the principle that religious freedom must be exercised within the bounds of public order and the rights of others, and that public land cannot be appropriated for exclusive religious use.
