No permission needed for holding religious prayer meeting in private premises: Allahabad HC

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court observed that no permission is needed for holding a religious prayer meeting within private premises in Uttar Pradesh.

However, the court clarified that if any occasion arises where the religious prayer meeting has to spill over the public road or public property, the petitioner shall inform the police and take any requisite permission under the law in such a situation.

The court was dealing with two similar petitions moved by Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust, both Christian bodies seeking the holding of prayer within their private premises.

Disposing of both the writ petitions, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the order after taking into account the UP government's submission that no such requirement of seeking permission exists in law.

The court noted, "Replies have come from the state government in which it is very clearly stated that there is no prohibition on the petitioner to conduct a religious prayer meeting within his private premises. It is also stated that equal protection of the law is accorded by instrumentalities of the state to all citizens across the state without discrimination with regard to religion or any other consideration".

The high court observed that no permission was required under the law to pursue an act which is part of the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which deals with religious freedom to citizens.

It was submitted that both Christian organisations wanted to have a religious congregation of worship within their private premises but the state failed to act on their representations seeking permission for it.

Considering the submissions, the high court disposed of the petitions with the observation that the petitioners have a right to conduct the prayer according to convenience in their private premises without any permission from the state government.

In its order dated January 27, the court further said the state can decide the manner in which such protection, if required, is to be provided.