Munazir Khan v. State of U.P. & 4 Others, 2026

The petitioner, Munazir Khan, filed a writ petition alleging that the State administration was preventing him from offering Namaz at a site he claimed was a mosque.

The petitioner contended that during Ramzan, a large number of persons wished to congregate for prayers and there could be no constraint on the number of worshippers.

On February 27, 2026, the High Court heard the matter and rejected any state-imposed restriction, holding that law and order is the responsibility of the State, and officers failing to enforce the law should either resign or seek transfer.

Later, the Additional Advocate General of U.P. claimed that the restriction of 20 worshippers recorded in the February order was a misrepresentation by the petitioner’s counsel. The Court rejected this explanation, noting the order was passed in open court with the State present.

The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit with photographs of the premises. The Court observed that the structure was not formally a mosque, but it had historically been used for Namaz.

The State assured the Court that it would not interfere with worship conducted on private premises or at private places of worship.

The Allahabad High Court emphasized that Article 25 protects the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, and this includes congregational worship, which is integral to Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

The Court clarified that Eastern faiths, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, may congregate during festivals and celebrations, which also fall under the ambit of religious practice.

The Court observed that Article 25 does not confer any special status on the adherents of a particular religion, including Islam, and is neutral with respect to all faiths. The freedom of conscience includes the right of atheists to profess and propagate beliefs based on reason, logic, and science.

Regarding the petition:

• The Court directed that no obstruction should be made to devotees offering Namaz at the historical site, acknowledging past religious use of the premises.

• Private premises are protected, and individuals or groups cannot be prevented from offering prayers, irrespective of faith, as long as law and order is maintained.

• The State is responsible for protecting worshippers and places of worship if objections arise from others.

On the law-and-order contention:

• The Court clarified that officers of the State, including Superintendent of Police and District Collector, cannot restrict fundamental rights due to fear of law-and-order issues.

• They must either enforce law effectively or resign/seek transfer if unable to do so.

On incitement and public order:

• Actions or speech that incite one religion against another under the guise of prayer are not protected by Article 25.

• Article 25 does not provide immunity from criminal liability for conduct that could disturb public order or pit one religious group against another.

The Court drew attention to India’s pluralistic and diverse character, noting that the resilience of the republic lies in the peaceful coexistence of multiple religions, cultures, and languages, as protected by Article 25.

Petition allowed.

State directed to ensure protection of the worshippers and continuity of religious practices at the premises.

Order to be circulated to the Director General of Police and Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P., for enforcement down to local law enforcement authorities.

Article 25 guarantees the right to congregate for religious worship, including on private property.

State cannot arbitrarily restrict religious congregations, provided there is no imminent threat to law and order.

Private worship is fully protected, regardless of faith, and objections from third parties must be addressed by the State.

Incitement against another religion under the guise of prayer is not protected and falls outside Article 25.

Freedom of religion is neutral and applies to all faiths and beliefs, including atheism.

Law and order obligations do not justify abridging fundamental rights; officers must enforce law rather than restrict rights.

Reaffirms fundamental right to religious worship under Article 25.

Confirms private property worship cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.

Limits the scope of Article 25: does not protect religious incitement or public disorder.

Establishes positive State duty to protect worshippers and religious sites.

Emphasizes faith-neutral application of constitutional rights.

Maintains balance between freedom of religion and law & order responsibilities.

Recognizes historical continuity and community practice in determining protection.

Ensures enforcement of High Court directions down to local law enforcement authorities.