A fresh confrontation over the right to pray inside private property has drawn sharp scrutiny from the Allahabad High Court, which has issued contempt notices to Bareilly’s District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police.
The trigger: allegations that local authorities restrained a group from offering namaz within a privately owned house in Mohammad Ganj village, despite a clear judicial pronouncement last month stating that no prior permission is required for holding religious prayers on private premises.
The matter surfaced in Tarik Khan v. State of UP & 2 Others, where a resident claimed that officials acted in disregard of the Court’s earlier ruling. A Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan sought instructions from the State while simultaneously initiating contempt proceedings against the concerned officers for allegedly flouting its January 27 judgment.
The Bench also moved swiftly to shield the petitioner from any immediate repercussions. Until the next hearing, any coercive action against him will remain stayed. The case is slated to be listed on March 11 among the top matters of the day.
A Ruling Revisited
The controversy traces back to a significant January verdict delivered in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others. In that decision, the Court underscored that activities flowing from Article 25 of the Constitution — which guarantees freedom of religion — do not require state permission when conducted within the four walls of private property.
The Court had clarified, however, that such gatherings must remain confined strictly to the private premises in question.
That ruling came in response to petitions filed by Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust, both of which argued that their requests to hold religious congregations on their own premises were met with administrative inaction.
The Bench disposed of those petitions by affirming a straightforward principle: what the Constitution protects cannot be made contingent on executive approval — so long as it remains within lawful bounds.
Tensions in Bareilly
Despite that clarity, friction resurfaced in Bareilly earlier this year when action was reportedly taken against individuals offering prayers on a private rooftop. With Ramadan approaching, residents sought assurances that they could conduct prayers indoors without interference.
When their representation allegedly drew no response, the issue returned to the courtroom — this time framed as a question of compliance.
The High Court’s latest move signals that its earlier pronouncement was not advisory but binding. Whether the district administration’s actions amount to defiance will now be examined under the Contempt of Courts Act.
For now, the message from the Bench is unmistakable: constitutional freedoms, once judicially affirmed, cannot be sidestepped by silence or selective enforcement.
