New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court told the district collector and police superintendent of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh that they should either resign or ask for a transfer if they are not able to maintain law and order in the area. The court made the remark after the local authorities limited the number of people allowed to offer prayers at a mosque, saying it was necessary because of “law and order” concerns.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan made the observation on February 27. The judges stressed that it is the responsibility of the state to make sure that people of every community can pray peacefully at their own places of worship.
Court emphasises right to pray on private property
The court also repeated that people do not need permission from the government to offer prayers on private property.
The bench said, “This court has already settled that it is only where prayers or religious functions have to be held on public land or spill over the public property that the involvement of the state is essential, and permission must be sought.”
Petition filed over restrictions during Ramzan
The incident came into the light when Sambhal resident Munazir Khan moved the court seeking answer why he was prevented from conducting prayers during the ongoing fasting month of Ramzan. Khan produced photographs and revenue records of the land related to the site where where the namaz was to be offered.
The state government challenged the ownership of the land and submitted the revenue records in the court. According to these records, the land belongs to Mohan Singh and Bhooraj Singh. The government also argued that permission had been given to only 20 people to offer namaz at the site. However, Khan responded that the number of worshippers could increase because of Ramzan.
The government further claimed that the restriction was imposed due to a possible law and order issue in the area and an order was passed to limit the number of people gathering for prayers. However, the court rejected these arguments and clearly stated that it is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order in every situation and ensure that the rule of law is followed.
The court also asked the state government’s lawyer to get proper instructions regarding the matter and scheduled the next hearing for March 16.