3 min readLucknowFeb 18, 2026 12:09 AM IST
First published on: Feb 17, 2026 at 02:45 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has directed that contempt notices be issued to the Bareilly District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) for allegedly not complying with its January order, in which it held that no permission is required for holding religious prayer meetings in private premises.
The court passed the order while hearing a petition by a man, Tarik Khan, seeking permission to offer namaz at his private premises since Ramzan is approaching.
Asked why the petition was filed, the petitioner apprised the court of an incident that took place last month.
In January, the police had picked up a group of men, including Khan, for questioning for allegedly offering namaz at the same premises.
The court was told that the petitioner has instituted the present petition on the ground that the month of Ramzan is imminent and he has sought permission to offer namaz and religious activities at his private premises.
Khan’s counsel, Rajesh Kumar Gautam, submitted that on hearing the matter, the court directed issuance of notices to the District Magistrate and SSP under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In its February 12 order, the division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and S A Siddharth Nandan stated, “Learned counsel for the State is requested to seek instructions in this case… Till the next date of listing, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed.”
It listed the case for further hearing on March 11.
The January 27 order
In its order passed on January 27 (Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs. State of UP), the HC was hearing a plea that sought permission to hold a religious congregation within its private property. The petitioner had said despite making several representations to the authorities, permission was not granted.
The court observed that the petitioner has the right to conduct the prayer, as per convenience, in his own private premises without any permission from the state government. If the congregation spills over onto a public road or public property, it said the petitioner shall intimate police and seek requisite permission under the law.
The court added, “The manner in which protection, if required, is to be provided… is within the discretion of the State. However, it is a concomitant duty on the State to ensure that property, rights and life of the petitioner are protected at all cost. How this is done is entirely the discretion of the police.”
The Bareilly case
In January, Bareilly Police said it had received information that a group was using a private premises at Mohammadganj village to offer namaz, and detained 12 people. “Considering the sensitivity of the matter and apprehending the possibility of tension in the area, a team was dispatched to the spot,” a police officer had said.
The counsel further submitted that on hearing the matter, the court directed issuance of notices to the District Magistrate and SSP under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
Share
