The verdict delivered by the Allahabad High Court allowing prayers on private properties has been welcomed by various organisations of the minority communities. The groups praised the verdict calling it a big relief and caution against arbitrary police action.
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, while hearing two petitions filed by Maranarha Full Gospel Chaaritable Trust and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust, declared that the law doesn’t prohibit individuals from holding prayers on private properties and asserted that seeking permission from the administration or the police is not required.
The bench noted, “There is no need to seek permission to arrange a religious prayer meeting on a private property.”
The court’s verdict has received praise from various minority bodies and social activists. Welcoming the verdict, president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Mahmood Madani said, “The verdict is an unequivocal restatement of the right to religious freedom enshrined in Article 25.”
Recalling that many FIRs were registered and arrests were made by the police for holding prayers, he said, “Peaceful prayers were disrupted by the government and were claimed to be law and order issues that led to fear and uncertainty among many people. The verdict has finally given relief and constitutional guarantee.”
In January, 11 Muslim men were arrested for organising and offering prayers inside a private Home in Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh.
Madani further stressed that the constitution guarantees all citizens the right to freely worship and asserted that the right cannot be questioned or suspended.
Madani also urged the government to ensure justice and peace in the country especially as the month of Ramadan approaches. He said that the government and the police must not intervene in religious affairs of all citizens and that everyone should be allowed to worship without any fear or worry.
All India Christian Council leader and Human rights activist John Dayal condemned the government and said, “The verdict serves as a slap to the government. Why do we even need permission for what we do inside our homes? The fact that a court had to intervene to resolve this issue says a lot about our status in the country.”
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, while hearing two petitions filed by Maranarha Full Gospel Chaaritable Trust and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust, declared that the law doesn’t prohibit individuals from holding prayers on private properties and asserted that seeking permission from the administration or the police is not required.
The bench noted, “There is no need to seek permission to arrange a religious prayer meeting on a private property.”
The court’s verdict has received praise from various minority bodies and social activists. Welcoming the verdict, president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Mahmood Madani said, “The verdict is an unequivocal restatement of the right to religious freedom enshrined in Article 25.”
Recalling that many FIRs were registered and arrests were made by the police for holding prayers, he said, “Peaceful prayers were disrupted by the government and were claimed to be law and order issues that led to fear and uncertainty among many people. The verdict has finally given relief and constitutional guarantee.”
In January, 11 Muslim men were arrested for organising and offering prayers inside a private Home in Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh.
Madani further stressed that the constitution guarantees all citizens the right to freely worship and asserted that the right cannot be questioned or suspended.
Madani also urged the government to ensure justice and peace in the country especially as the month of Ramadan approaches. He said that the government and the police must not intervene in religious affairs of all citizens and that everyone should be allowed to worship without any fear or worry.
All India Christian Council leader and Human rights activist John Dayal condemned the government and said, “The verdict serves as a slap to the government. Why do we even need permission for what we do inside our homes? The fact that a court had to intervene to resolve this issue says a lot about our status in the country.”