Allahabad HC issues contempt notice to Bareilly DM, SSP ‘for stopping namaz in private home’

BAREILLY: Allahabad high court has issued a contempt notice to Bareilly district magistrate Avinash Singh and senior superintendent of police Anurag Arya for allegedly preventing a group of Muslims from offering namaz inside a private house in Mohammadganj village, observing that its earlier ruling -- on a petition by Christian groups -- permitting prayer meetings within private premises without prior state permission prima facie applied to the present case too.A bench of Justices Atul Shreedharan and Siddharth Nandan on Feb 12 initiated proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the two officers while staying any coercive action against petitioner Tarik Khan. HC fixed March 11 as the next date of hearing and sought their response.The dispute traces back to Jan 16, when a group of Muslims was detained and later released after offering namaz inside a vacant house owned by Reshma Khan, who said she had permitted the gathering and that the prayers were confined strictly within her private premises. The petitioners approached HC relying on its earlier order in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of UP, a case involving Christian organisations that had sought permission to conduct prayer meetings inside private premises. In that ruling, HC held that individuals may conduct prayers within their own property without seeking prior permission, provided the gathering does not spill onto public roads or land, and clarified that while prayer within private premises requires no approval, organisers must intimate police and obtain requisite permission if the event extends into public space.The petitioner, Tarik Khan, said, "The Jan 27 order related to another minority section — Christians — clearly stated that prayers can be offered within the premises of a private property. We too are a minority, so the same rule should apply to us. So far, we have been protected by the court's stay, and that is why we resumed our prayers from the house."Senior HC lawyer SFA Naqvi, reacting to both the order and the protests by Hindu residents, told TOI that the ruling left little room for ambiguity. "The order is self-explanatory. On the one hand, the court has upheld the petitioner's constitutional right to hold prayers within private premises. On the other hand, the state itself has submitted before the court that no prohibitory order has been issued in this regard. In such circumstances, how can members of the public claim that the practice is illegal?" he said.He added that maintaining public order is an administrative responsibility. "It is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order — not that of private individuals. If there is any protest against the holding of prayers, it is for govt to address and manage the situation in accordance with the law. Those opposing a lawful religious practice should be dealt with by the authorities, rather than the individuals exercising their constitutional rights," Naqvi said.Meanwhile, tensions in Mohammadganj intensified as some Hindu residents objected to the resumption of Friday prayers at the house. Five families painted "House for Sale" on the outer walls of their homes, alleging that weekly prayer meetings were being organised in different private houses and expressing apprehension that the residential property could eventually be converted into a permanent place of worship. A representation was also submitted to chief minister Yogi Adityanath seeking intervention.The village comprises around 100 houses with a population of nearly 600, with members of both communities living in close proximity. Police deployment increased earlier this week as disagreements escalated into public protest. Kamal Kishore, a villager, said, "They were stopped last time, but now they have resumed the namaz in the same house. We want the house to be demolished before it is converted into a madrasa and mosque."SSP Arya said the situation remained under control and that officers had been deployed to maintain law and order. "No coercive action has been taken. We have never interfered with religious practices as long as they do not violate established norms. Our concern is only to ensure that no residential property is clandestinely converted into a notified place of public worship without due process," he said.