.jpg)
Last month, the High Court ruled that a religious prayer meeting on private property could be organized without permission.
The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly have received a notice from the Allahabad High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act prohibiting certain individuals from performing namaz at a private property in the village of Mohammad Ganj [Tarik Khan v State of UP & 2 Others].
The Bench decided last month that a religious prayer gathering on private property in Uttar Pradesh could be held without authorization. A Mohammad Ganj village resident, however, charged that the authorities were not following the ruling.
The State attorney was asked to provide guidance on the application for orders to stop authorities from interfering with the prayers at the location by the Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan.The Court further directed that respondents no. 2 and 3 be given notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for disobeying the court's order of January 27, 2026, in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs. State of U.P. and 2 others: 2026:AHC:18364-DB.
It mandated that the case be added to the top ten cases as a fresh case on March 11. Additionally, the Court halted all proceedings against the petitioner.The Bench ordered that coercive actions against the petitioner be halted until the following listing date.
After considering the Uttar Pradesh government's argument that there is no legal necessity to obtain permission, the Court issued a landmark decision last month regarding the freedom to pray within private property.
The Court decided that, in accordance with Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, no legal authorization was needed to carry out an action that constituted a fundamental right. It did clarify, though, that this is contingent upon the fact that religious prayer meetings be conducted exclusively on the property's private grounds.
The ruling was rendered on January 27 in response to two related applications filed by Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust and Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries.
They said they wished to hold a religious gathering on their property, but the State did not take any action in response to their requests for authorization.
After reviewing the submissions, the Court dismissed their petitions, noting that the petitioners were free to pray wherever it was most convenient for them on their own property without the State government's consent.
Authorities in Bareilly took action against a group of Muslims last month for praying on the roof of a private residence in January.
After the Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries case was decided, the locals went back to the authorities to ask for permission to pray on the property, particularly during the approaching month of Ramadan.
Nevertheless, it is said that the authorities did not act on the representation. The Court was then petitioned by a nearby citizen who claimed that the January 27 order had not been followed.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
