State should provide protection to those facing threats for holding prayers in private spaces: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Monday said that the State must provide security to people facing threats for congregating to hold prayers inside private properties in Uttar Pradesh [Munazir Khan v. State of UP & 4 Others].

A Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan asked the State to be cognizant of its recent verdict that there can be no impediment or embargo with regard to prayers or religious functions being conducted within the private premises of a person, irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to.

"Any objection taken by any person (individual or group) against prayers being conducted in a private space, should be taken cognizance of by the State and if need be, protection be accorded to the place of worship and the worshipers," the Court said.

In its order, the Court also emphasised on India's rich diversity.

"The glory of this republic of 1.4 billion of the earth's humanity lies in her resilience and strength, arising from her historical, religious, cultural and linguistic diversity, like no other nation state on this planet with every major religion, culture and varied languages having co-existed for centuries in peace, harmony and mutual respect, formalised by Article 25 of the Constitution of India after the same came into force," the Bench said.

The Court said that its order be sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and Additional Chief Secretary (Home), for the purpose of circulation right down to the lowest law enforcement authority in the State.

It also clarified,

"While parting with this case, this Court deems is essential to state here, that the elucidation of article 25 of the Indian Constitution by this Court, is not to be construed as giving any special status to the adherents of the Islamic faith in India."

The Court added that it has only laid down that Article 25 gives every religion and faith in India an equal and immutable right to profess, practice and propagate their faith equally across the board without any "ifs and buts", subject only to public order, morality and health.

However, it also said that the law prohibits actions and speech having the propensity to vitiate public order by pitting one religious denomination against the other. The same would take the proscribed act beyond the scope of the protection of Article 25 and expose the person to the full rigours of the criminal law, the Bench said.

The Court was dealing with a case from Sambhal in which it was alleged that the authorities were preventing Muslims from attending prayers at a mosque (Gata No. 291) during the ongoing Ramzan.

On March 13, the Court had questioned the local administration’s decision to limit the number of Muslim nazamis at the mosque. It had also said that the State officials should resign if they cannot uphold law and order.

In the latest order, the Court said that congregating for prayer is a facet of the Abrahamic faiths.

"Eastern faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism by contrast don't have fixed days for community congregations for worship in temples and the community congregates for celebration (which includes worship) of festivals," the Bench added.

It also said that while Article 25 protects the right to congregate for worship to every religious denomination in this country, but the same does not protect such acts and utterances which are devoid of the primary purpose of the congregation, which is prayer.

"By no stretch of imagination does Article 25 accord protection to incitement of one faith by the other in the garb of prayer and that must be borne in mind by the adherents of all faiths/religions."

Moreover, it said that Article 25 is religion and faith neutral. It added that the freedom of conscience protects and enables equally an atheist to profess, practice and propagate that there is no God, on the anvil of logic, reason and science.

Meanwhile, during the hearing of the case on March 16, the State said that no details had been given as to who had restricted the number of worshipers to 20 in the mosque located in Sambhal.

The same was incorrectly mentioned in the order, the government said.

However, the Court said that the order was passed in open court with both sides present.

"No objection was taken by the State with regard to any discrepancy of the factual aspects relating to the number of worshipers, who are permitted to offer Namaz in the said premises, when the order was being dictated. However, in the aforementioned order, this Court has stated the basis for having passed the operative portion in paragraph 6 of the said order. Therefore, if the said order was imperfect on facts on account of misrepresentation by the petitioner, the counsels appearing for the State would have very well prevented this Court from recording that fact in the said order," the Court remarked.

On the merits of the matter, the Court said that the photographs of the premises where the prayers are to be conducted indicate that the structure is not a mosque, as on date.

"The photograph reflects that on the left hand side, there is a two-storey structure and on the right hand side, arrangements have been made for two washrooms. The said place has been used for the purpose of offering Namaz earlier, there shall be no obstruction offered to the devotees for prayers to be offered at the same place," the Bench said.

However, the Court also said that the matter can be disposed with the direction for following the earlier verdict that permits holding of prayers in private properties. The Court also recorded an assurance of the State in this regard.

"The State has yet again reiterated what it has stated in the past that the State shall not interfere and interrupt worship carried out by any denomination in their private properties or at their respective places of worship. The petitioner is also directed to ensure that the traditions that have continuously been followed since 1995 with regard to worship at that place, shall be followed strictly," the Bench said.

Advocate Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Advocate Priyanka Midha appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]