Prayagraj (UP), May 2 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction to authorities to provide security and permission to offer namaz on a piece of land in a village of Sambhal district, saying right to practice religion is subject to public order and cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with the rights of others.
The court observed that introduction or expansion of a religious use or practice not previously prevalent, particularly where it disturbs the existing social balance, is not protected under Articles 25 and 26.
A bench of justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prasad observed that the State is not required to wait for an actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures where such activity is likely to affect public life.
Petitioner Aseen of Sambhal claiming himself owner of the property based on a gift deed argued that the respondent authorities were restraining such prayers, thereby violating his fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The counsel for the state claimed that the land in question is recorded as Abadi land which is meant for public use and that the petitioner has no ownership rights over it. The bench was apprised that namaz has traditionally been offered at this location only on the occasion of Eid and that no restriction has been imposed on this established practice.
It was further submitted that the petitioner was attempting to introduce regular large-scale congregational prayers by inviting persons from within and outside the village.
It was also submitted that while religious practices are to be respected, no new traditions or non-traditional activities can be permitted and that established practices must be adhered to in order to maintain public order.
After hearing the counsels for the parties, the court observed, “Public land is meant for common use and no individual or group can claim a right to use it as an exclusive or recurring religious space. The State is bound to ensure equal access and cannot permit preferential or exclusive use of such land.
The court further said, “The right to practise religion is subject to public order, including access, movement and peaceful living and cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with these rights of others.” In its order, the bench stressed that the right to practice religion is not an unlimited right and must be exercised in a way that does not affect others or disrupt the normal functioning of public life.
The court also said that the State is constitutionally entitled and in appropriate cases duty-bound to prevent the use of public land without lawful authority.
After going through the facts of the case, the material on record, the court said that it do not support the claim advanced by the petitioner and dismissed the petition. PTI COR RAJ ZMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.