The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the Uttar Pradesh administration's decision restricting the number of persons offering Namaz during Ramzan at a mosque in Sambhal district, observing that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the State.

In an order passed on February 27, a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan remarked that if the Superintendent of Police and District Collector apprehend law and order problems and therefore seek to limit the number of worshippers, they should either resign or seek transfer if they are unable to enforce the rule of law.

"Learned counsel for the State has said that on account of perceived law and order situation such an order restricting number of worshipers have been passed.

 We out rightly 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. "

“If the local authorities i.e. Superintendent of Police and Collector feels that the law and order situation could arise because of which they want to limit the number of worshipers 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 Court observed.

"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 as already been held by the Court earlier, to perform worship without any permission from the State," the Court added.

The observations were made while hearing a writ petition filed by Munazir Khan alleging that he was being prevented from conducting prayers during the month of Ramzan on Gata No. 291, where he claimed a mosque exists.

According to the petitioner, authorities had permitted only twenty persons to offer Namaz at the premises, even though a larger number of worshippers were expected to gather during Ramzan.

The State defended the restriction, submitting that the limitation on the number of worshippers had been imposed due to perceived law and order concerns.

The bench, however, rejected the justification offered by the State. It emphasized that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the rule of law prevails in all circumstances and that every community is able to practice its faith peacefully.

The Court further clarified that State permission is required only when religious activities are held on public land or when they spill over into public property.

During the hearing, the State disputed the petitioner's claim regarding the property, stating that the revenue records show the land in the names of Mohan Singh and Bhooraj Singh, sons of Sukhi Singh. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not yet produced photographs showing the existence of the mosque or place of worship where Namaz was to be offered.

The petitioner sought time to place on record photographs and revenue documents regarding the site, while the State sought time to obtain further instructions.

The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 16.

Case : Munazir Khan v. State of UP