The Allahabad High Court has ruled that public land cannot be claimed as a matter of right for offering namaz or conducting large-scale religious gatherings, emphasising that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom is not absolute and remains subject to considerations of public order, morality, and the rights of others.
The court delivered this observation while dismissing a petition filed in connection with land in Ikona village in Sambhal, where the petitioner had sought permission to offer prayers. A division bench comprising Justices Garima Prasad and Saral Srivastava rejected the plea, stating that the use of land for recurring public religious activity cannot override broader civic and legal considerations.
The petitioner argued that the land in question was privately owned, claiming possession through a registered gift deed and asserting that offering namaz on private property does not require prior approval from authorities. He further maintained that restricting such activity amounted to a violation of his constitutional right to freely practice religion.
However, the Uttar Pradesh government contested these claims, stating that official revenue records classify the land as “Abadi land,” which is designated for common public use. Authorities also pointed out that the submitted gift deed lacked precise identification details, relying only on general boundary descriptions, and therefore did not establish valid ownership.
The state further informed the court that while prayers had historically been offered at the location during specific occasions such as Eid, there had been no blanket prohibition on such practices. The concern, according to authorities, was that the petitioner was attempting to initiate regular congregational prayers involving larger gatherings, including people from outside the village, which could potentially disturb local harmony and public order.
In its ruling, the court drew a clear distinction between individual religious practice and organised public gatherings. It observed that personal worship within a private setting remains protected under constitutional rights, but when such activities expand into organised events involving larger groups, they acquire a public dimension and can be subject to regulation by the state.
The bench also noted that authorities are not required to wait for an actual law-and-order situation to arise and may act preemptively if there is a reasonable likelihood of disruption to public peace or communal balance. Since the petitioner failed to establish ownership and the land continued to be legally recognised as public property, the court concluded that there was no basis to grant permission and dismissed the plea.
