Allahabad High Court Criticizes Namaz Attendance Cap Imposed on Law and Order Grounds
Background of the Petition
The matter in Munazir Khan Vs State of U.P. And 4 Others came before the Allahabad High Court in the context of restrictions imposed on offering Namaz during the month of Ramzan at Gata No. 291, situated in district Sambhal.
The assessee–petitioner approached the Court asserting that:
- He and other worshipers were being obstructed from performing Namaz at Gata No. 291.
- According to him, a mosque already existed at this location and Namaz had been offered there.
However, at the time of filing the petition:
- No photographs of any mosque or clearly identifiable place of worship at Gata No. 291 were enclosed.
- No documentary material was initially produced to prove that the site was being regularly used as a mosque.
During the proceedings, the Court also took note of a supplementary affidavit that was subsequently filed, intending to bring further evidentiary material on record.
State’s Stand and Dispute over Land Records
The State authorities opposed the assertions of the petitioner and specifically questioned the nature and ownership of the land described as Gata No. 291.
Based on the revenue records produced by the State:
- Gata No. 291 is recorded in the names of Mohan Singh and Bhooraj Singh, both sons of Sukhi Singh.
- The land, therefore, stood in the names of private individuals and not in the name of any religious body or waqf, as per the documents shown to the Court at that stage.
Despite this ownership position, the authorities had:
- Allowed performance of Namaz at the site.
- Imposed a cap permitting only twenty worshipers to offer prayers there.
The petitioner argued that:
- During Ramzan, particularly in congregational prayers, a significantly larger number of persons naturally assemble to offer Namaz.
- The limitation of only twenty worshipers was, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable, given the religious significance of the month.
Justification Advanced by the State: Law and Order Concerns
The learned counsel for the State sought to defend the restrictive order on the ground that:
- A perceived law and order situation could arise if a large gathering was allowed at the location.
- To pre-empt any possible disturbance, the authorities had decided to restrict the number of worshipers to twenty.
The submission was essentially that the restriction was a preventive measure, allegedly necessary in the interest of maintaining public order and peace in the area.
Court’s Firm Rejection of the Law and Order Argument
The Allahabad High Court clearly and unequivocally rejected the justification offered by the State. The Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows:
Primary Responsibility of the State
The Court stressed that:
- Ensuring the rule of law is fundamentally the responsibility of the State and its law enforcement machinery.
- The State cannot take shelter behind speculative law and order apprehensions to curtail the legitimate exercise of religious rights at designated places of worship.
Duty of Senior District Officials