Can State Stop Religious Prayers on Private Land? Allahabad High Court Sends Contempt Notice to Bareilly DM, SSP

The Allahabad High Court on February 12, 2026 issued notices under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the Bareilly District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police for allegedly failing to comply with its earlier directions concerning religious gatherings on private premises.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Tarik Khan. He submitted that the district administration had not responded to his application seeking permission to offer namaz on his privately owned land during Ramazan.

Tarik further stated that he and other members of his community had earlier been issued challans under Section 151 CrPC (Section 170, BNSS) for offering namaz on the same land, and apprehended that similar action might be taken again.

During the hearing, the bench referred to its January 27, 2026 decision in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of U.P. and two others, where it had examined administrative restrictions imposed on conducting religious prayers within private property.

In that judgment, the court had clarified that while the State has the authority to regulate assemblies in public places to maintain law and order, it cannot interfere with peaceful religious activities carried out inside privately owned premises without lawful authority or a specific prohibitory order.

Court had emphasised that executive action must align with constitutional guarantees under Articles 19 and 25, and that blanket restrictions without statutory backing would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Alleging that despite these directions, the Bareilly administration prevented the offering of namaz within private premises, Khan approached the high court seeking relief.

Taking note of the submissions, the division bench sought instructions from the state counsel and issued notice to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police under the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged non-compliance of its January 27 order.

The matter has been directed to be listed on March 11, 2026 as a fresh case in the top ten matters. Court has also stayed coercive proceedings against the petitioner until the next date of listing.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam.

Case Title: Tarik Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Order Date: February 12, 2026

Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan