HC to Magistrates: Send Contempt Reference if Police not abiding Orders

Recently, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine whether the State could restrict congregational prayers on grounds of law and order, while also addressing concerns of misuse of religious rights to incite discord. The case, arising from restrictions on offering Namaz during Ramzan, brought into focus a critical question, where does the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution end, and where does unlawful incitement begin?

The controversy began when the petitioner approached the Court alleging that the local administration was obstructing the offering of Namaz at a site he claimed functioned as a mosque, particularly during Ramzan when large gatherings are customary. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees an unrestricted right to practice religion, including congregational prayers, and that the State cannot impose arbitrary limits on the number of worshippers.

The State, however, attempted to justify its stance by citing apprehensions of law and order issues, even suggesting that earlier observations regarding restrictions had arisen due to misrepresentation. The dispute thus evolved into a broader clash between administrative control and fundamental religious freedoms.

The Court affirmed that the right to congregate for worship is protected but not absolute. It held that Article 25 of the Constitution safeguards prayer, not provocation, observing that it “does not accord protection to incitement of one faith by another in the garb of prayer.” At the same time, the Bench made it clear that there can be no embargo on offering prayers within private premises, reinforcing that such acts fall squarely within protected religious freedom.

The Court also rejected the State’s attempt to dilute its earlier observations, noting that no objection had been raised when the order was dictated. Directing authorities to ensure non-interference with lawful prayers while maintaining public order, the Court disposed of the petition with appropriate directions.

Case Title: Sandeep Audichya Vs. State of U.P. and Ors

Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 1332 of 2026

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.J. Munir, Hon'ble Mr. Justice  Vinai Kumar Dwivedi

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Hanuman Prasad Mishra

Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com