Introduction: Allahabad High Court Judgment On Religious Freedom
It definitely warms the innermost cockles of my heart, brain and mind to see happily that none other than the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India, in not only just Asia, in not only just few continents but in the whole world in a most learned, landmark, logical, latest and laudable judgment titled Munazir Khan Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others in Writ – C No. – 5996 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:52685-DB that was pronounced as recently as on March 16, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the State must provide security to people facing threats for congregating to hold prayers inside private properties in Uttar Pradesh.
It is beyond a shred of doubt that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan have struck the right note in asking the State to be cognizant of its recent verdict that there can be no impediment or embargo with regard to prayers or religious functions being conducted within the private premises of a person, irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to.
- The State must ensure security for worshippers facing threats.
- No impediment on religious practices within private premises.
- Applicable irrespective of religious denomination.
It must be noted that the Allahabad High Court has said clearly that its order be sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and Additional Chief Secretary (Home), for the purpose of circulation right down to the lowest law enforcement authority in the State.
Case Background: Sambhal Mosque And Ramzan Restrictions
It must be laid bare that the Allahabad High Court was dealing with a case from Sambhal in which it was alleged that the authorities were preventing Muslims from attending prayers at a mosque (Gata No. 291) during the ongoing Ramzan.
- Location: Sambhal
- Issue: Restriction on attending prayers
- Context: Ongoing Ramzan
It may be recalled that on March 13, the Allahabad High Court had questioned very seriously the local administration’s startling decision to limit the number of Muslim nazamis at the mosque.
It also had said unequivocally drawing huge applause among the common person and so also in every house hold that the State officials should resign if they cannot uphold law and order because they are enjoined by their job to act accordingly and if they cannot do so then they should resign as observed by the Allahabad High Court earlier in this leading case which was delivered earlier!
Para 1: Supplementary Affidavit And Land Details
At the very outset, this most robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Atul Sreedharan for a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that, “Pursuant to the last order of this Court, supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Details relating to the land and its possession with the petitioner and its subsequent dedication to the Waqf by the grandfather of the petitioner, whose name is Chhidda Khan in the year 1995, allegedly for the construction of a Mosque has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit.”
Para 2: State’s Contention And Alleged Anomaly
As we see, the Division Bench then unfolds in para 2 stating that, “Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Priyanka Midha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has referred to the last order that was passed by this Court in this case, which is of date 27.02.2026 and has sought to explain that purported anomaly that has crept into paragraph- 4 of the said order, wherein this Court has recorded that permission was granted only to the extent of twenty worshipers, who may offer Namaz, whereas the petitioner says a large number of persons may come to offer Namaz as it is Ramzan time within the said premises. This contention of the State was rejected by this Court which for the sake of brevity is not being reiterated herein, but the same has been stated in paragraph 4 of the aforementioned order.”
Para 3: No Constraint On Number Of Worshippers
Briefly stated, the Division Bench points out in para 3 of this refreshing judgment that, “Suffice it to say this Court held that there can be no constraint on the number of worshipers, who may worship at the given point of time and the reason given by the State relating to public order/law and order was rejected.”
Para 4: Court Rejects State’s Argument
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 4 of this brilliant judgment stating concisely that, “Learned Additional Advocate General has informed this Court that the same was incorrectly mentioned by the petitioner’s counsel in the writ petition as no details have been given as to who has restricted the number of worshipers to twenty alone, we have considered the submission put forth by the learned Additional Advocate General but are unable to agree with him with regard to the source of information. The order dated 27.02.2026 was passed in open Court with both sides present. No objection was taken by the State with regard to any discrepancy of the factual aspects relating to the number of worshipers, who are permitted to offer Namaz in the said premises, when the order was being dictated. However, in the aforementioned order, this Court has stated the basis for having passed the operative portion in paragraph 6 of the said order. Therefore, if the said order was imperfect on facts on account of misrepresentation by the petitioner, the counsels appearing for the State would have very well prevented this Court from recording that fact in the said order.”
Para 5: Nature Of Structure And Worship Rights
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 5 of this remarkable judgment that, “However today, after having gone through the supplementary affidavit, which has given photographs of the premises, where the prayers are to be conducted, this Court opines that the structure is not a mosque, as on date. The photograph reflects that on the left hand side, there is a two-storey structure and on the right hand side, arrangements have been made for two washrooms. The said place has been used for the purpose of offering Namaz earlier, there shall be no obstruction offered to the devotees for prayers to be offered at the same place.”
Para 6: Reference To Maranatha Case
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 6 of this courageous judgment while citing a recent and relevant case law that, “We are of the view that this petition can be disposed of by directing the State, yet again, to be fully cognizant of the order passed by this Court in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026:AHC:18364-DB, where on the instructions of State itself, this Court had directed that there can be no impediment/embargo with regard to prayers/religious function being conducted within the private premises of a person irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to.”
Para 7: State Must Provide Protection
Most commendably and so also most significantly, the Division Bench then deems it absolutely fit to encapsulate in para 7 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Any objection taken by any person (individual or group) against prayers being conducted in a private space, should be taken cognizance of by the State and if need be, protection be accorded to the place of worship and the worshippers.”
Key Principles Established
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Freedom of Worship | Prayers in private spaces cannot be restricted |
| State Responsibility | State must ensure safety and protection |
| No Private Obstruction | Objections by individuals/groups must be addressed |
Para 8: State Reiterates Non-Interference
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 8 noting that, “The State has yet again reiterated what it has stated in the past that the State shall not interfere and interrupt worship carried out by any denomination in their private properties or at their respective places of worship. The petitioner is also directed to ensure that the traditions that have continuously been followed since 1995 with regard to worship at that place, shall be followed strictly.”
Division Bench: Parting Note and Clarification on Article 25
Most remarkably and on a parting note, the Division Bench propounds in para 9 holding that, “While parting with this case, this Court deems is essential to state here,that the elucidation of article 25 of the Indian Constitution by this Court, is not to be construed as giving any special status to the adherents of the Islamic faith in India.
This Court has only laid down that article 25 gives every religion and faith in India an equal and immutable right to profess (declare his/her faith) practice (rituals, prayers, ceremonies and festivals) and propagate (to teach tenets and practices of a faith to others) equally across the board without any “ifs and buts”, subject only to public order, morality and health, which also prohibits actions and speech having the propensity to vitiate public order by pitting one religious denomination against the other, which would take the proscribed act beyond the scope of the protection of article 25 and expose the person to the full rigours of the criminal law.”
Core Rights Under Article 25
- Profess: Declare one’s faith
- Practice: Rituals, prayers, ceremonies and festivals
- Propagate: Teach tenets and practices of a faith to others
Limitations Under Article 25
- Public order
- Morality
- Health
- Prohibition of acts or speech that may incite inter-religious conflict
Congregational Practices Across Faiths
It cannot be lost on us that the Division Bench is most unambiguous in holding most explicitly in para 10 that, “Congregating for prayer is a facet of the Abrahamic faiths. The Jews congregate in synagogues for Shabbath on Friday, and Saturday is a faith ordained day of rest and spiritual reflection. The Christians congregate in churches for Sunday mass and the muslims congregate in mosques for the Friday afternoon prayer. Eastern faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism by contrast don’t have fixed days for community congregations for worship in temples and the community congregates for celebration (which includes worship) of festivals. Article 25 protects the right to congregate for worship to every religious denomination in this country but the same does not protect such acts and utterances which are devoid of the primary purpose of the congregation, which is prayer. By no stretch of imagination does article 25 accord protection to incitement of one faith by the other in the garb of prayer and that must be borne in mind by the adherents of all faiths/religions.”
Comparison of Congregational Practices
| Faith Category | Religion | Place of Worship | Congregation Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abrahamic Faiths | Judaism | Synagogues | Shabbath on Friday; Saturday as day of rest |
| Abrahamic Faiths | Christianity | Churches | Sunday Mass |
| Abrahamic Faiths | Islam | Mosques | Friday afternoon prayer |
| Eastern Faiths | Hinduism, Buddhism | Temples | No fixed days; congregations during festivals |
Religion Neutrality and Atheism Under Article 25
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “Article 25 is religion and faith neutral, and the freedom of conscience that it protects, enables equally an atheist to profess, practice and propagate that there is no God, on the anvil of logic, reason and science.”
India’s Diversity and Constitutional Glory
Most commendably, what must ostensibly attract maximum eyeballs is that the Division Bench then underscores in para 12 expounding precisely that, “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, like no other nation state on this planet with every major religion, culture and varied languages having co-existed for centuries in peace, harmony and mutual respect, formalised by article 25 of the Constitution of India after the same came into force.”
Disposal of Writ Petition
As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 13 that, “With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
Directions to State Authorities
Finally and resultantly, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 14 that, “The State is requested to ensure that a copy of this order reaches Director General of Police, U.P. and Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P. for the purpose of circulation right down to the lowest law enforcement authority in the State.”
Conclusion and Implications
In summation, it is high time and there can be just no gainsaying that the State of Uttar Pradesh must seriously pay heed to what the Allahabad High Court has directed in this leading case so elegantly, eloquently and effectively and provide protection to those facing threats for holding prayers in private spaces. To put it differently, the Allahabad High Court made it abundantly clear that it is duty of the State to ensure that every community is able to offer worship peacefully in the designated place of worship and if it is a private property as already been held by the Court earlier, to perform worship without any permission from the State. It was also made crystal clear by the Allahabad High Court that there can be no impediment or embargo with regard to prayers or religious functions being conducted within the private premises of a person, irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to. No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
