The Allahabad High Court expressed strong displeasure over an administrative order restricting the number of worshippers offering prayers at a mosque in Sambhal district during Ramzan, observing that maintaining the rule of law is the State’s foremost responsibility.
The Court remarked, “It is the duty of the State to ensure that the rule of law prevails under every circumstance. If the local authorities i.e. Superintendent of Police and Collector feels that the law and order situation could arise because of which they want to limit the number of worshipers within the premises, they should either resign from their post or seek transfer out side Sambhal if they feel they are not competent enough to enforce the rule of law.”
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan while hearing a petition filed by Munazir Khan.
Also read: https://practicinglawyer.in/sc-st-membership-alone-not-ground-for-fir-allahabad-high-court/
According to the petition, the petitioner alleged that he was being prevented from offering prayers during Ramzan at a mosque situated on Gata No. 291 in Sambhal. It was contended that the local administration had permitted only 20 persons to offer prayers within the premises, despite the likelihood of a larger gathering during the holy month of Ramzan.
On behalf of the State Government, it was submitted before the Court that the restriction had been imposed in view of a possible law and order situation. However, the Court outright rejected the justification, reiterating that ensuring the rule of law under all circumstances is the responsibility of the State authorities.
Also read: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-high-court-medical-formalities-not-enough-pregnant-minor-case/
The Bench observed that if the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate apprehended a breakdown of law and order to such an extent that they had to limit the number of worshippers, they should either resign from their posts or seek transfer outside Sambhal.
The Court further found that where worship is conducted on private property, prior permission of the State is ordinarily not required. The Court further submitted that religious worship carried out on private premises does not generally require governmental approval, unless it involves public land or affects public property.
The State opposed the petitioner’s claim of ownership, informing the Court that the revenue records record Mohan Singh and Bhooraj Singh, both sons of Sukhi Singh, as the lawful tenure holders of the land.
The Bench recorded that the petitioner had not produced photographs of the alleged prayer site and allowed time for their submission along with supporting revenue records, while granting similar liberty to the State.
The Court thereafter listed the matter for further hearing on March 16 and directed both parties to file all necessary documents before the next date.
Case: Munazir Khan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Date of Order: 27.02.2026
Next Date: 16.03.02026
