It is the responsibility of the state government to maintain law and order and cannot be used as a ground to limit religious worship.
PRAYAGRAJ — The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh authorities for restricting the number of Muslim worshippers at a mosque in Sambhal district to just 20 during the holy month of Ramadan, saying the State is duty-bound to maintain law and order and cannot use perceived security concerns as a justification for limiting religious practice.
The court remarked that if officials feel incapable of maintaining law and order, they should “resign from their post or seek transfer”.
A Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan made the observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Munazir Khan, who alleged that authorities were preventing people from offering prayers on land claimed to house a mosque.
The petitioner submitted that the local administration had permitted only 20 persons to offer Namaz at the site, even though a larger number of worshippers were expected during the Ramzan period.
However, the Uttar Pradesh government disputed the petitioner’s claim regarding the existence of a mosque at the site and contended that the land in question, Gata No. 291, is recorded in the names of Mohan Singh and Bhooraj Singh, both sons of Sukhi Singh, in the revenue records.
It further submitted that the restriction on the number of worshippers had been imposed due to perceived law and order concerns.
Rejecting the justification, the Justice Sreedharan-led Bench said that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the state government and cannot be used as a ground to limit religious worship.
“We outrightly reject the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the State. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the rule of law prevails under every circumstance,” the Allahabad High Court observed.
It further made strong remarks against the local administration, observing that if officials were unable to handle the situation, they should step aside.
“If the local authorities i.e. Superintendent of Police (SSP) and Collector feel that the law and order situation could arise because of which they want to limit the number of worshippers within the premises, they should either resign from their post or seek transfer outside Sambhal if they feel they are not competent enough to enforce the rule of law,” the Justice Sreedharan-led Bench observed.
In its order, the Allahabad High Court emphasised that every community has the right to peacefully practise religion at designated places of worship.
“It is duty of the State to ensure that every community is able to offer worship peacefully in the designated place of worship and if it is a private property… to perform worship without any permission from the State,” the Justice Sreedharan-led Bench said, adding that permission from authorities is required only when religious activities are held on public land or spill over onto public property.
During the hearing, the Allahabad High Court also noted that the petitioner had not placed photographs or other materials on record to establish the existence of a mosque or place of worship at the site.
Granting time to both sides, the Justice Sreedharan-led Bench allowed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit along with photographs and relevant revenue records to substantiate the claim regarding the place where Namaz is to be offered.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 16.
In a separate but related matter concerning alleged police action over Namaz offered inside a private house in Bareilly, the same Bench has directed the District Magistrate and SSP of Bareilly to remain present in court on the next date of hearing when judgment is to be delivered.
During the proceedings, the Allahabad High Court recorded the statement of the house owner, Haseen Khan, who alleged that he had been taken by police while offering namaz at his residence and later compelled to put his thumb impression on a written document.
Taking note of his apprehensions regarding safety, the Justice Sreedharan-led Bench directed that two armed guards be deployed round-the-clock to protect him and accompany him wherever he goes until further orders.
It further observed that any incident of violence against him or damage to his property would be prima facie presumed to have occurred at the instance of the state government, subject to rebuttal. — With inputs from IANS
