Allahabad High Court Takes Stern Action, Summons Bareilly Officials Over Namaz Allegations
The Allahabad High Court has issued a significant order, summoning the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Bareilly to appear before it on March 25. This directive comes in response to serious allegations that authorities restricted the offering of namaz inside a private house, potentially infringing upon fundamental religious rights.
Petitioner's Allegations and Court's Previous Observations
The case stems from a petition filed by Bareilly resident Tarik Khan, who claimed that on January 16, local authorities did not permit namaz to be conducted inside his house. A division bench comprising Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad presided over the matter, highlighting the gravity of the issue.
In a related precedent, the court had previously disposed of a writ petition in the case of Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs. State of UP and two others. The bench had clearly observed that individuals have the right to conduct prayers as per their convenience in their own private premises without requiring permission from the state government.
However, the court had also mandated that if such activities were to spill over onto public roads or property, the petitioner must intimate the police and obtain any requisite permissions under the law. This balanced approach aimed to protect both religious freedom and public order.
State's Defense and Contempt Notice Issued
Appearing on behalf of the state, Additional Advocate General Anup Trivedi argued before the court that authorities never disrupted the namaz. He stated that approximately 50 people regularly prayed at the location, suggesting normalcy in religious practices.
Despite this defense, the court had earlier taken a firm stance. On February 12, the division bench granted time to the state counsel to seek instructions in the case. Simultaneously, it issued a notice to the DM and SSP under the Contempt of Courts Act for allegedly flouting its order dated January 27, 2026, from the Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries case.
Court's Direct Question on Fundamental Rights Violation
During the recent hearing on Monday, the court posed a critical question to the state counsel. It demanded an address on whether there has been a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Constitution.
This inquiry underscores the court's commitment to upholding constitutional guarantees, ensuring that state actions do not unjustly curtail religious practices conducted within private domains. The summons for March 25 sets the stage for a detailed examination of the allegations and the officials' responses.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between administrative authority and individual religious freedoms, with the judiciary playing a pivotal role in adjudicating such sensitive matters. The outcome could set a significant precedent for similar disputes across the region.
