Reaffirmation Of Article 25: Chhattisgarh High Court's Stance On Prohibition Of Private Prayer Meeting
Every person has a right to practice their own religion as per Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, state can only interfere when it affects public order, morality or health. State should have no objection if a person is practicing his religion within his domestic household.
The present case “Badri Prasad Sahu & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh” 2026:CGHC:13995 as decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 1st April 2026 held that individuals do not require prior state permission to conduct prayers within their domestic households provided that such an act do not interferes with the exceptions mentioned under Article 25 of Indian Constitution. The present case clarifies the ambiguity that no administrative action can prevent a person from practicing his fundamental right and that too within their habitable space. Authorities often use restrictive practices and intervene in the religious affairs in the guise of preventing a bigger harm, even when there is no such harm to public policy, morality or health. What makes this judgment important is how the Chhattisgarh High Court cancelled the police notice issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and held that authorities can't interfere with the religious affairs until there is a valid legal reason behind it.
Background of the case
The present case revolves around petitioners named Badri Prasad Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu who were resident of Godhna village of Chhattisgarh, where they use to conduct Christian prayer in a peaceful manner from 2016. They used to conduct the prayer meet in the private hall in their own dwelling house. The prayer meetings were conducted peacefully without installation of loudspeakers, without processions and without causing any disturbance to the public. Despite the peaceful conduct the SHO of Nawagarh Police station, Chhattisgarh issued three separate notices dated 18th October 2025, 22nd November, 2025 and 1st February 2026 under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023. These notices asked the petitioners to stop the conduct of such prayer meet on the ground that such meetings require a prior permission of the concerned authorities.
On constant reassurance by the petitioners that proper and due care was taken and the activity was conducted peacefully, a No Objection Certificate was issued by the Gram panchayat but was later withdrawn due to pressure. According to the petitioners, this continuous interference by the authority caused violation of their fundamental rights. On the other hand, the state contended that the petitioner failed to receive prior permission from the authorities and mentioned about some criminal cases registered against them. Hence on such ground the police justified the issuance of notice non preventive grounds. Aggrieved by this repeated interference, the petitioners approached the Chhattisgarh High Court to quash the police notices and to provide them protection and allow them to conduct prayer meetings in their dwelling house, without further interference.
The important issues raised in this matter was that does an individual need prior permission from the authority to conduct religious meeting within their four walls and can police authorities invoke preventive orders under Section 94 BNSS without any threat to public policy, health or morality.
Court's Ruiling
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi gave a constitutionally prudent and a straightforward reasoning. The court stated that the property in question is legally owned by the petitioner and hence they can't be deprived of using it any way. The base of the authority's notice that the petitioner's required permission to use their property itself reflected that such a notice was arbitrary and was unlawful. The court stated that there is no such law that restrains a person from organizing prayer meet in their dwelling house unless such gathering causes harm to others. Thus, the court quashed the notice and directed the authority not to unnecessarily interfere with the persons right under the guise of inquiry.
Judicial Convergence on Limits of Preventive Order
A similar view was held in the case of Maranatha Gospel Ministers v. State of UP & Others 2026:AHC:18364-DB, where a Division bench headed by Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan of the Allahabad High Court had the same stand that no permission is required for the prayer meetings that is to be conducted in private place. However, court added a proviso to it that if such meetings extend to public space then state has the authority to regulate such meetings and a prior permission will also be required. This theory in a way tries to maintain complete harmony between religious freedom and maintaining public order.
Similarly, in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1986 INSC 167 the court held that freedom of conscience under Article 25 cannot be restricted unless there is a real threat to public order. In this case, Supreme Court decided in favour of students who refused to sing National Anthem, holding that peaceful conduct based on belief is constitutionally protected.This principle clearly aligns with the current case where the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that if prayer meetings were conducted peacefully and without any disturbance and in the private place, there is no prior requirement of consent from the authority.Similarly, the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017 INSC 801, the Court held that the State cannot interfere in personal choices without a valid and proportionate reason. In the present case, police unnecessary interference amounted to meddling with the private domain without any justification. These cases support the view that fundamental rights cannot be restricted based on a mere apprehension or administrative convenience.
Implication: Protecting Individual Liberty from Arbitrary Actions
The court clarified that no authority can interfere in private prayer meetings without a valid justification or on a mere vague apprehension, such actions if not justified will be regarded as arbitrary and ultra vires and will be hence struck down. Court also held that the burden of proof will lie on the state to prove that the party has been deprived of their right because of violation of a specific law.
Thus, this judgment clarifies that freedom of religion also includes freedom to assemble privately and worship and no authority can stop them from doing so without a proper legal cause. Court also held that the three notices sent to the petitioners was not legally correct as the BNSS gives power to these police authorities to maintain public order and maintain peace, it does not any way give them the police to intervene in someone's private affairs that is conducted within the four walls without causing any disturbance to the people. Moreover the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 do not put any bar on persons to practise their religious affairs or conducting private prayer meeting within their private space unless the act is intended to disturb public order, or cause nuisance.
Police Conduct and Constitutional Accountability
This deals with whether the police instead of discharging their duty lawfully are somewhat acting arbitrarily, unfairly or in a mala fide way as no such statutes states that holding a peaceful payer meet is wrong and requires a prior permission from the authority unless such an act will lead to disturbances. This act of the police is seen as a coercive action as sending such repeated notices creates a sense of fear and pressure among people.
The rationale behind the High Court's direction that the police authorities must not harass individuals under the veil of inquiry is that there are chances of misuse of such legal procedures as a tool of harassment. Court clarified that such misuse violates peoples right and held needs judicial scrutiny. This cancellation of the notices by the authority will work as a precedent to restrain any such future harassments done by the authority for achieving unconstitutional objectives.
Need for better training about Religious Rights to the Police Authorities
Litigations are not always chosen by people due to financial and physiological burdens and time constraints and hence many violations go unchallenged. This highlights that police authority often lacks knowledge about the constitutional guarantees under such provisions. Due to lack of proper understanding they may wrongfully interfere with proper legal practises. This emphasizes a need for a structured and proper training for the police authorities regarding such religious freedoms.
This case clarifies any such dispute that may arise in future litigations and will act as a guiding principle that no authority can abridge anyone's right merely on apprehension by putting force or pressure. This case also clears the position that people have the fundamental right to practise their religion freely in their household.
Author is an LLM student. Views are personal.