It is definitely most heartening to note that while taking a very grim view of the local administration’s decision to limit the number of Muslim namazis at a mosque in Sambhal by imposing it, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Munazir Khan Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others in Writ – C No. – 5996 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on February 27, 2026 has once again most strongly questioned the Uttar Pradesh State Government on whether restrictions could be imposed on members of the Muslim community offering Namaz on private property. It must be noted that during the hearing of a writ petition challenging alleged restrictions on offering Namaz during Ramzan in Sambhal district, a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan drew parallels to Hindu religious practices and questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh whether similar restrictions could be imposed on Hindus praying in their own homes. It must be laid bare that the Division Bench made the remarks on a plea that had been moved by Sambhal resident Munazir Khan who said that he was prevented from conducting prayers during Ramzan at the mosque.
It also would be worthwhile to mention that the Division Bench while taking a most stern view of Sambhal district authorities placing restrictions on the number of worshippers at a mosque has asked the Sambhal Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate to resign from their posts or opt for a transfer if they don’t find themselves competent enough to enforce the rule of law. While objecting to the petitioner’s claim, the counsel for the State disputed the ownership of the land. While questioning the Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goel who was representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan orally asked: Are such restrictions placed in temples? A stampede occurred at the Maha Kumbh Mela (last year in Prayagraj), did you restrict 2 persons per 3 square feet? If the Hindus are praying in their houses, can they be stopped from doing so?” Absolutely right and the logic forwarded fits the bill!
It must be taken into account that the Division Bench further clarified that the State has the authority to intervene only if religious activities or prayers spill over onto public roads, but not when they are concluded strictly within private property boundaries. It also cannot be lost sight of that the oral remarks were made after the State’s counsel submitted that the premises in question was not a mosque as claimed by the petitioner but rather a private house. No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this most robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that, “Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench then states in para 2 of this most commendable judgment that, “ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 of this most courageous judgment that, “In the present case, petitioner says that he is prevented from conducting prayers during Ramzan on Gata No.291 where according to the learned counsel for the petitioner a Mosque exist. The petitioner has not filed any photographs of a Mosque or a place of worship within which the Namaz is supposed to be offered.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 of this most creditworthy judgment that, “The state has disputed the ownership of the said Gata No.291 and the same is reflected in the names of Mohan Singh and Bhooraj Singh both sons of Sukhi Singh in the revenue records. However, permission is granted only to the extent of twenty worshipers, who may offer Namaz, whereas the petitioner says a larger number of persons may come to offer Namaz as it is Ramzan time within the premises.”
Do note, the Division Bench then notes in para 5 of this concise judgment that, “Learned counsel for the State has said that on account of perceived law and order situation such an order restricting number of worshipers have been passed.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly, most rationally and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the actual cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We out rightly reject the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the State. 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 outside Sambhal if they feel they are not competent enough to enforce the rule of law. It is duty of the State to ensure that every community is able to offer worship peacefully in the designated place of worship and if it is a private property as already been held by the Court earlier, to perform worship without any permission from the State. This Court has already settled that it is only where prayers or religious functions have to be held on public land or spill over the public property that the involvement of the State is essential and permission must be sought.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 7 noting that, “Under the circumstances, and State has sought time to seek instructions in this case and the petitioner wants to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record photographs and revenue records to show where the Namaz is to be offered.”
Finally, we see that the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this brilliant judgment by directing and holding in para 8 that, “List this case on 16.03.2026 as fresh in top ten cases.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan have made it indubitably clear most commendably that there has to be parity between Hindus and Muslims and what is legal for Hindus to do cannot ostensibly be illegal for Muslims to do! It was rightly observed by the Division Bench that, “When Hindus are not stopped from praying at home in groups then why should Muslims be stopped?” How can we be ever oblivious of the irrefutable fact that the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is a fundamental right? It thus merits no reiteration that all the courts in India including the High Courts and so also the Supreme Court in similar such cases should rule accordingly as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in this leading case! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi