Private premises can’t be transformed into de facto public religious venue: Allahabad High Court

‘’The Constitution protects the right to practice religion, but it also makes it clear that this right is subject to public order, morality and health," the court said.

Lucknow: In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has said that the protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (guaranteeing fundamental right to freedom of religion) is confined to activity that is truly private, occasional and non-disruptive and that it does not extend to transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue.

The Court also said that the Public land was meant for everyone and was controlled by law and that no individual could claim a right to use it for regular religious gatherings.

A division bench comprising Justices Garima Prashad and Saral Srivastava gave this ruling recently while rejecting a petition by a resident of Sambhal seeking permission of ‘namaz’ (prayer) at what he contended was his private premises.

The petitioner contended that ‘Namaz’ had been offered at the land, which he claimed to be his private property, and alleged that the authorities were restraining such prayers and further said that the restraint violated his fundamental rights.

‘’The Constitution protects the right to practice religion, but it also makes it clear that this right is subject to public order, morality and health. It is not an unlimited right. It cannot be exercised in a way that affects others or disturbs the normal functioning of public life,’’ the court said.

‘’When it comes to public land, the position is straightforward. Public land is meant for everyone and is controlled by law. No individual can claim a right to use it for regular religious gatherings’’, the court remarked.

The court said that the position in respect of private property stood on a different footing. Private prayer, family worship, and such limited devotional activity as remains genuinely internal to the premises ordinarily fell within the protected domain of Articles 25 and 26.

‘’This protection, however, is confined to activity that is truly private, occasional, and non-disruptive. It does not extend to transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue,’’ it added.

‘’Once the activity assumes such a congregational character, it is no longer merely a matter of inward faith. It begins to produce external consequences: it may draw repeated attendance, including persons beyond the immediate household, affect ingress and egress, create traffic and parking concerns, alter the character of the locality, generate noise, require policing, and in sensitive areas, create the possibility of inter-community tension. At that stage, the activity assumes a public or quasi-public dimension. It is not that the private property loses all protection, but that the use of such property, to that extent, no longer remains purely private for constitutional purposes and becomes amenable to reasonable regulation,’’ the court said.