Response to Allahabad High Court's Ruling on Public Prayer Spaces

Iqbal Ansari, a former petitioner in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, expressed his views on Saturday regarding the Allahabad High Court's statement that prayers on public land are subject to state regulations.

Speaking to a news agency in Ayodhya, Ansari emphasized that religious rituals should be conducted at designated worship sites and not in public areas. He stated that mosques are specifically constructed for prayers, thus there is no need to utilize public land for this purpose. He urged people to adhere to the law, asserting that any court ruling should be respected. His comments followed the high court's decision indicating that prayers on public land fall under state regulations.

In response to the Allahabad High Court's ruling, which stated that prayers on public land are governed by state laws, Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Barelvi, president of the All India Muslim Jamaat, remarked, "This decision is entirely correct. According to Islamic Sharia, prayers should not be performed in places where disputes or conflicts may arise, or where someone might have objections or discomfort. Such locations should be avoided for prayers." Previously, the high court had noted that public land cannot be monopolized by any individual or group for religious activities, including prayers, and that such use is subject to public order and the rights of others.

The bench, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prasad, made these remarks while dismissing a petition filed by Asin, a resident of Ikouna in the Gunnaur tehsil of Sambhal district, which sought relief regarding the use of land for prayers. The court clarified that public land cannot be unilaterally used for religious purposes by one party, stating that all individuals have equal rights to such properties and that monopolistic use is not legally permissible. The court further commented that when such activities extend beyond private boundaries and affect the public domain, regulatory intervention by the state becomes permissible. It noted that the interpretation cannot be made that there is an unlimited right to convert private premises into uncontrolled gathering spaces.