Allahabad High Court Issues Contempt Notices To Bareilly DM, SSP Over Alleged Interference In 'Namaz' At Private Property
The Allahabad High Court last week issued a contempt notice to Bareilly District Magistrate Ravindra Kumar and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya for allegedly restraining certain individuals (including petitioner-Tarik Khan) from offering Namaz inside a private house.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the actions of the officials appeared to have 'flouted' the HC's January 27 order in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of U.P. and 2 Others.
For context, in the Maranatha case, this same bench had observed that a citizen does not require any kind of permission under the law to offer religious prayers, which is a part of his/her fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, if the same is conducted within private premises of his/her own property.
In fact, in that order, the Court had recorded the State's own admission that there is no prohibition on holding a religious prayer meeting on its private premises.
Now, in the present case, petitioner-Khan moved the High Court seeking a direction to the officials not to create a hindrance or prevent them from offering Namaz during the month of Ramzan
Khan, represented by Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam, claimed that the District Police had first detained him on January 16 along with certain other individuals for allegedly offering Namaz in an empty home owned by one Reshma Khan "without permission".
They were challaned under Section 151 of the CrPC (Section 170 of the BNSS).
Crucially, following the High Court's order in Maranatha on January 27, the petitioner submitted a representation before the DM and SSP on January 28 (personally) and February 2 (by registered post), requesting permission to offer prayers in the same private premises during the upcoming month of Ramzan.
His counsel argued that, despite the Court's clear ruling, the officials kept these representations pending.
Consequently, Khan moved the High Court seeking a direction to the officials to grant the requisite permission and not create any hindrance.
It was argued that the prayers were confined strictly to private premises and that, as per the Maranatha case, he required no approval to offer such prayers.
Taking a stern view of the matter, the Bench directed the state counsel to seek instructions in the matter. Further, the bench issued notice to the concerned respondents for 'flouting' the HC's January 27 order.
The matter has been posted for March 11 as fresh in the top ten cases. The bench also directed that, until the next date of listing, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed.