Officials in Ayodhya referenced intelligence suggesting that the ceremony, marking the death anniversary of a Sufi saint, could inflame tensions and spark communal unrest. In Barabanki’s Suratganj region, authorities specifically banned the four‑day Urs at Syed Shaqeel Baba’s shrine, a tradition maintained for over seven decades, after police flagged a violent incident last year at the same location.
In both districts, the administrations emphasised the need to prevent unrest. Barabanki’s Additional Superintendent of Police Vikas Chandra Tripathi reported deployment of additional forces, including plainclothes officers and flag marches, aimed at deterring gatherings that might provoke conflict. Similarly, Ayodhya authorities said that the complaint by VHP activists, who feared disruption to communal harmony, weighed heavily in the denial of permission.
Despite a tradition spanning several years, local officials acted on intelligence inputs warning that Als violated prior safe‑use protocols, and noted that the scale of the events—often drawing thousands—could exceed current law‑and‑order management capacity. One official noted that the planning fall under “communal sensitivity zones”.
The cancellations have provoked criticism from minority communities and the Dargah management committee, who argue the bans constitute religious discrimination. A petition challenging the decision at the Bahraich location is ongoing before the Allahabad High Court, where petitioners argue that if massive events such as the Kumbh Mela can proceed, equivalent Muslim commemorations should not be obstructed. The court has yet to determine if the petitioners have proper standing.
Legal experts note that the courts are now evaluating whether administrative authority to cancel public gatherings based on potential law‑and‑order issues overrides constitutional guarantees of religious freedom under Article 25. The High Court has asked petitioners to clarify their locus standi before a full hearing is scheduled.
State officials counter that the decision is purely administrative and safety‑driven—unconnected to communal bias. They highlighted previous mobile internet blocks and additional police deployment in zones where large assemblies might escalate. Barabanki’s SDM, Vivek Sheel, stressed that a simplified form of commemoration at the shrine could go ahead under observed, supervised conditions; however, large congregations remain prohibited.
Community leaders in Barabanki expressed disappointment over what they see as heavy‑handed governance. They say they were not consulted prior to the orders and fear the move undermines communal harmony. Civil society activists warn that indefinite suppression of such long‑established traditions may deepen feelings of alienation and exacerbate mistrust between communities.
At the heart of the dispute lies a delicate question: whether genuine law‑and‑order concerns should curtail centuries‑old religious observances. Stakes are escalating as local governments grapple with the implications of permitting or denying public worship events—balancing safety, legal precedent, and social cohesion.