No Right Conferred To Convert Private Premises Into An Unregulated Congregational Space: Allahabad HC
It is of great significance to note that the Allahabad High Court in a most recent judgment titled Aseen Vs State Of UP And 3 Others in WRIT – C No. – 10803 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:74259-DB that was pronounced as recently as on April 6, 2026 has made it indubitably clear while citing many judgments that the Court in many cases protected bona fide prayer within private premises and maintained that such personal religious exercises cannot be arbitrarily interfered with but added a caveat holding that these decisions do not confer a right to convert private premises into an unregulated congregational space. We thus see that the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition that had been filed by a petitioner seeking security, protection and permission to offer namaz at a private premises of 82.8 sqm at Ikona in Pargana Rajpura area of Gunnaur tehsil in Sambhal. It was held by the High Court that the “pleadings were vague and lacked material particulars.” This clearly depicts that if the pleadings were more organized and filed with material particulars, the result could definitely have been different and now they still have opportunity to do so if the petitioners decide to finally go in appeal to the Supreme Court on this!
At the very outset, this latest judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Garima Prashad for a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Saral Srivastava and herself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has sought the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to provide security/protection and permission of the prayer (Namaz) at the private premises (i.e. area 82.80 sqr mtr of Abadi Land) of petitioner situated at Village Ikona, Pargana Rajpura, Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2/District Magistrate Sambhal to consider and pass the appropriate order upon the representation dated 15.11.2005 pending before him within stipulated period, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.””
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 3 that, “The petitioner’s case is that Namaz has been offered on a piece of land at Village Ikona, District Sambhal, which he claims to be his private property. He alleges that the respondent authorities are restraining such prayers. The petitioner asserts ownership over the land on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 16.06.2023, and contends that the restraint violates his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution, as persons professing Islam are entitled to offer Namaz without interference.”
Frankly speaking, the Division Bench points out in para 11 that, “Freedom, in a constitutional society, is always accompanied by responsibility towards others. The Constitution protects the right to practice religion, but it also makes it clear that this right is subject to public order, morality and health. It is not an unlimited right. It cannot be exercised in a way that affects others or disturbs the normal functioning of public life. As is often said, one person’s freedom ends where it begins to affect someone else.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 12 noting that, “When it comes to public land, the position is straightforward. Public land is meant for everyone and is controlled by law. No individual can claim a right to use it for regular religious gatherings. Such use affects movement, access and safety, and in appropriate situations, communal equilibrium; it must therefore be regulated. It is the State’s obligation to ensure equal access, civic order and non-discriminatory administration.”
While citing the relevant case laws, the Bench then observes in para 13 that, “The law in this regard is well settled. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005, the Supreme Court recognized protection in matters of religion, but made it equally clear that the right is not dissociated from the constitutional limitations expressly written into Article 25. In M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360, it was observed that Namaz may be offered anywhere, which means that no particular place can be claimed as a matter of right.”
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench mentions in para 14 that, “In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of maintaining social harmony, civic peace and the rule of law and reminded that courts must be mindful of the practical impact of their decisions. Where a claim to hold religious congregation on public land has the potential to create social tension, the constitutional court must ensure that the conditions necessary for peaceful coexistence are maintained.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 15 that, “In this context, it must be recognised that existing lawful practices, long-regulated arrangements, or permissions granted for limited or specific purposes may stand on their own footing; but no new or unilateral claim can be founded merely on religion or personal preference. The State is constitutionally entitled, and in appropriate cases duty bound, to prevent the use of public land without lawful authority.”
Notably, the Division Bench notes in para 16 that, “The position in respect of private property stands on a different footing. Private prayer, family worship, and such limited devotional activity as remains genuinely internal to the premises ordinarily fall within the protected domain of Articles 25 and 26. This protection, however, is confined to activity that is truly private, occasional, and non-disruptive. It does not extend to transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue.”
Quite significantly, it must be noted that the Division Bench notes in para 17 that, “Once the activity assumes such a congregational character, it is no longer merely a matter of inward faith. It begins to produce external consequences: it may draw repeated attendance, including persons beyond the immediate household, affect ingress and egress, create traffic and parking concerns, alter the character of the locality, generate noise, require policing, and in sensitive areas, create the possibility of inter-community tension. At that stage, the activity assumes a public or quasi-public dimension. It is not that the private property loses all protection, but that the use of such property, to that extent, no longer remains purely private for constitutional purposes and becomes amenable to reasonable regulation.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench while adding more to it encapsulates in para 18 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “This position is consistent with the decisions relied upon by the petitioner. In Munazir Khan vs. State of U.P. & Others, Pastor Selvakumar Samu vs. State of U.P., Marantha Full Gospel Ministries vs. State of U.P. and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P., the Court protected bona fide prayer within private premises and held that such personal religious exercise cannot be arbitrarily interfered with. However, those decisions cannot be read as laying down that organized or regular congregational activity on private premises is wholly immune from regulation. They recognize a limited protection, namely where prayer remains confined to a private, non-disruptive setting. Where the activity extends beyond that sphere and begins to affect the public domain, lawful regulation follows. These decisions do not confer a right to convert private premises into an unregulated congregational space.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench underscores in para 19 mandating that, “Further, the law does not require the authorities to wait for an actual disturbance to occur. Where an activity is likely to affect public order, the State is entitled to act in advance. The test is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences. This approach is consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all religions and equal application of law. While the State must permit private worship, it is equally bound to regulate activities that affect public order, whether on public land or on private premises. Maintaining this balance is essential to the working of Articles 25 and 26 in a constitutional system.”
Most rationally and as a corollary, the Division Bench propounds in para 20 holding that, “In light of the above discussion, the issue so framed stands answered in the following terms:
(i) Public land is meant for common use, and no individual or group can claim a right to use it as an exclusive or recurring religious space; the State is bound to ensure equal access and cannot permit preferential or exclusive use of such land.
(ii) The right to practise religion is subject to public order, including access, movement and peaceful living, and cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with these rights of others.
(iii) Private property may be used for personal and limited religious activity so long as it remains genuinely private, occasional and non-disruptive; however, once such use extends to regular or organized congregational activity involving persons beyond a limited private sphere, it falls outside the protected domain and may attract regulatory control.
(iv) Where such activity in the private property becomes regular, organized or large in scale, it may amount to a change in the nature of use of the premises and is subject to applicable laws, including planning and local regulations.
(v) The introduction or expansion of a religious use or practice not previously prevalent, particularly where it disturbs the existing social balance, is not protected under Articles 25 and 26. The State is not required to wait for actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures where such activity is likely to affect public life.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 21 that, “Turning to the facts of the present case, the material on record does not support the claim advanced by the petitioner. The pleadings in the writ petition are vague and lack material particulars. No specific incident, date, time or identifiable act attributable to any authority has been disclosed. The allegations of interference, threats and collusion with unnamed persons are general in nature and are not supported by any material. Such pleadings do not meet the standard required for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
It certainly cannot be lost on us that the Division Bench points out in para 22 that, “On the basis of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the land in question is recorded as public land. The claim of ownership rests entirely on a purported gift deed dated 16.06.2023, which does not contain basic land particulars such as Gata or Khata numbers and is based only on vague boundary descriptions. Such a document does not establish any identifiable title and cannot displace the revenue record.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench then stipulates in para 23 holding precisely that, “Even otherwise, if the land is assumed to be private, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. The record shows that he is not protecting an existing practice, but seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings, including persons from within and outside the village. It is admitted that Namaz was earlier offered only on specific occasions such as Eid. This expansion beyond a limited private sphere falls outside the protected domain and is subject to regulation.”
Resultantly, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 24 that, “In these circumstances, no enforceable legal right is made out. This Court cannot grant relief on such a basis, particularly where the matter has implications for public order and social harmony.”
Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 25 that, “Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
Author Bio
