High Court Addresses Religious Gatherings in Private Properties in Bareilly

The issue of conducting prayers inside homes in Bareilly has recently gained significant attention. This has sparked a debate regarding the balance between religious practices in private properties and maintaining public order. During a hearing related to this matter, the Allahabad High Court made a crucial observation, indicating that gathering a large number of individuals in a private residence could pose a threat to public order. The controversy is linked to an incident in a Bareilly locality, where the petitioner, Tariq Khan, was accused of inviting 50 to 60 people daily for prayers at his home, taking advantage of security provisions. The administration raised objections, presenting affidavits and photographs to the court that depicted the potential for crowding. Anup Trivedi, the Additional Advocate General representing the state, argued that such activities could disrupt peace and harmony in the area, thus should not be permitted.

Previously, a different bench comprising Justices Atul Srivastava and Siddharth Nandan had ordered on February 12 that notices be issued to the Bareilly DM and SSP for contempt of court regarding the violation of a January 27 order in the case of 'Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.' The bench stated that state permission is not required for holding prayer meetings in private premises. During a hearing on March 11, the bench instructed both officials to appear in court on March 23, failing which non-bailable warrants would be issued for their attendance. The court also ordered police protection for the property owner, Haseen Khan. Following a recent change in the bench composition, Justices Srivastava and Prasad heard the case on March 25. The Additional Advocate General presented images of the property, asserting that the petitioner was gathering large crowds for prayers daily. He contended that allowing this practice could be detrimental to the area's peace and order, emphasizing that it could not be permitted under the guise of personal safety.

The Additional Advocate General further stated that it is the responsibility of the authorities to maintain law and order, and if there is any potential for disruption, they have no choice but to act. In response, the petitioner's lawyer assured the court that the petitioner would not gather large crowds for prayers on the property. After hearing the arguments, the bench expressed hope and confidence that the petitioner would adhere to his commitment. Should the petitioner violate this undertaking and gather large crowds for prayers, thereby threatening peace and order in the area, the authorities would be free to act according to the law. The bench also instructed state officials to immediately withdraw any notices issued against the petitioner and others. Additionally, the contempt notices were canceled. Following the petitioner's lawyer's statement that the property owner no longer required police protection, the court directed the authorities to retract the security previously granted to Haseen Khan.