The Allahabad High Court has issued contempt notices to Bareilly’s DM and SSP for allegedly stopping namaz inside a private property despite a prior court order. The bench said prayers at private premises do not require government permission unless they spill onto public roads.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has issued contempt notices to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Bareilly for allegedly stopping certain individuals, including petitioner Tarik Khan, from offering namaz inside a privately owned property.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddhartha Nandan passed the order on February 12 while hearing a petition filed by Tarik Khan, a resident of Bareilly. The Court directed that notices be issued to the two officials under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for allegedly violating its earlier order dated January 27 in the matter of Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of UP and 2 Others. The case has now been listed for March 11 among the top 10 matters of the day.
In the earlier Maranatha case, the High Court had clearly stated,
“Under the circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of by observing that the petitioner has the right to conduct the prayer as per his convenience at his own private premises without any permission from the state government.”
The Court had further clarified,
“However, if any occasion arises where it has to spill over the public road or public property, in such a situation, this court mandates that the petitioner shall at least intimate the police and take any requisite permission under the law, if required.”
According to Tarik Khan’s counsel, advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam, the controversy began on January 16 when the Bareilly police allegedly detained his client and others for offering namaz inside an empty house without obtaining prior permission from authorities. They were reportedly challaned under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which relates to arrest to prevent the commission of cognisable offences.
After this incident, Tarik Khan approached the High Court seeking protection and a direction to authorities not to interfere with the offering of namaz during the holy month of Ramzan. His counsel stated,
“On January 16, Bareilly police detained my client and others for allegedly offering namaz in an empty house without permission.”
Following the High Court’s order in the Maranatha matter, Khan submitted a representation to the District Magistrate and the SSP on January 28 in person and again on February 2 through registered post. In his representation, he sought permission to offer namaz at the private property during Ramzan, even though the earlier court ruling had indicated that no such permission was required for prayers held strictly within private premises.
However, according to the petitioner’s counsel, the authorities did not take any decision on the representation and allegedly kept it pending despite the Court’s clear observations in the earlier case. As a result, Khan once again approached the High Court seeking directions to the officials to grant permission and to ensure that no obstruction was created.
Emphasising that the prayers were being conducted only within private property and without causing any public inconvenience, the counsel argued before the Court,
“It was argued that the prayers were confined strictly to private premises and that, as in the Maranatha case, my client required no approval to offer prayers.”
Taking serious note of the allegations that its earlier order may have been ignored, the Division Bench directed issuance of contempt notices to the District Magistrate and the SSP of Bareilly. The matter will now be taken up on March 11 for further hearing.
The development raises important questions regarding the right to practice religion within private property and the obligation of administrative authorities to follow judicial directions. The outcome of the contempt proceedings may have wider implications for how similar situations are handled by law enforcement agencies in Uttar Pradesh.
Click Here to Read More Reports on BJP Workers
