The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that no permission was needed for holding a religious prayer meeting in a private property in Uttar Pradesh [Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries v State of UP and 2 Others]
The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the ruling after taking into account Uttar Pradesh government's submission that no such requirement of seeking permission exists in law.
"Instructions have come from the State. Paragraph no.18 is relevant. It is very clearly stated that there is no prohibition on the petitioner to conduct religious prayer meeting within his private premises. It is also stated that equal protection of the law is accorded by instrumentalities of the State to all citizens across the State without discrimination with regard to religion or any other consideration," it noted.
Thus, the Court ruled that no permission was required under the law to pursue an act which is part of the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court clarified that the same is subject to the fact that religious prayer meeting is carried out only within the private premises of the property.
The Court was dealing with two similar petitions moved by Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust.
It was submitted that they wanted to have a religious congregation of worship within their but the State failed to act on their representations seeking permission for it.
Considering the submissions, the Court disposed of the petitions with the observation that the petitioners have a right to conduct the prayer as per convenience in his their private premises without any permission from the State government.
"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 so require," it added.
The Court further said the State can decide the manner in which such protection, if required, is to be provided.
"However, it is a concomitant duty on the State to ensure that property, rights and life of the petitioner are protected at all cost. How this is done is entirely discretion of the police," the Court clarified.
Advocate Manoj Kumar and Akal Raj Singh appeared for the petitioners.
[Read Order]