On May 2, 2026, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Garima Prasad and Saral Srivastava, dismissed a petition seeking authorization to perform namaz on a specific plot of land in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The court noted that no individual or organization can be permitted to utilize public land exclusively for large-scale religious gatherings.
The bench emphasized that the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute.
-
Public Order & Health. The court pointed out that these rights are tied to public order, morality, and health.
-
The Access Rule. Public property is governed by law and intended for everyone; exclusive use for routine religious events affects movement, safety, and communal equilibrium.
- Advertisement - -
State Obligation. It is the state’s duty to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory administration of public spaces.
Private vs. Public
The court drew a sharp distinction between internal family worship and congregational prayer. While private prayer within the home is protected, the court ruled that activities become “quasi-public” when they expand beyond the household.
“Once the activity assumes such a congregational character, it is no longer merely a matter of inward faith. It begins to produce external consequences: it may affect ingress and egress, create traffic and parking concerns… and in sensitive areas, create the possibility of inter-community tension.”
The Dismissed Sambhal Petition
The court dismissed the plea filed by a resident named Asin (or Aseen), who claimed a plot in Ikauna village was his property and sought protection to offer namaz there. The court rejected the claim on several grounds:
-
Flimsy Documentation. The ownership claim relied on a “gift deed” with ambiguous descriptions and lacked Khata or Gata numbers, failing to displace existing revenue records marking the land as public.
-
Introduction of New Practice. The court noted that historically, namaz at the site was only offered on special occasions like Eid. The petitioner was not protecting an existing tradition but attempting to introduce regular, large-scale gatherings.
-
Preventive Governance. The court held that authorities are not required to wait for actual disruption; the state has the right to take preventive steps if an activity has the potential to impact public order.
The Balance
The ruling reinforces the principle that secularism requires the equal application of law to all religions. While the State must permit private worship. It is equally bound to regulate any activity that spills into the public domain and threatens social harmony.