Allahabad High Court has directed that contempt notices be issued to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly for failing to comply with its January order that ruled no prior permission was required to hold religious prayer meetings on private premises.A division bench, while hearing a petition concerning alleged interference with prayer gatherings at a private residence, observed that its earlier directions had not been followed despite being clear and unambiguous. The court ordered the Bareilly District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police to respond to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for non-compliance.
The matter stems from a January ruling in which the court held that citizens organising religious prayers within private properties do not need prior approval from local authorities, provided such gatherings do not violate public order, safety norms, or other statutory provisions. The bench had emphasised that administrative authorities cannot impose blanket restrictions on peaceful assemblies within private premises absent a specific legal basis.
Petitioners had approached the court alleging that local officials in Bareilly were insisting on prior permissions and, in some instances, allegedly warning organisers against holding prayer meetings in homes. Counsel for the petitioners argued that such actions ran contrary to the January order and amounted to arbitrary interference with fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the bench noted that the earlier directive was intended to clarify the legal position and prevent unnecessary administrative hurdles for private religious gatherings. The judges observed that if authorities believed a particular event posed a threat to public order, they were free to act within the framework of law, but could not impose a general requirement of prior permission where none existed in statute.
Court records indicate that the January judgment followed a series of petitions challenging administrative circulars and verbal instructions that required organisers to seek approval even for small-scale prayer meetings in residential settings. The bench had held that the state’s regulatory powers must be exercised proportionately and that preventive restrictions must be backed by cogent material.
Legal experts say the contempt notices signal the judiciary’s growing impatience with non-compliance of court orders by administrative officials. Contempt proceedings, if pursued, can lead to penalties including fines or other sanctions, though courts often provide officials an opportunity to explain their position before taking coercive steps.
The Bareilly District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police have been directed to file affidavits explaining the steps taken following the January order and clarifying whether any circular or instruction inconsistent with the court’s directions remains in force. The matter is expected to be listed again after their responses are placed on record.
Officials in the district administration have not publicly commented on the development. Senior police officers in Bareilly indicated informally that law and order considerations often guide local decisions, particularly when gatherings attract large numbers of participants or generate complaints from neighbouring residents. However, they acknowledged that any such measures must align with judicial directives.
The case has drawn attention amid a broader national debate over the regulation of religious assemblies. Courts across several states have been called upon to balance the right to religious freedom with concerns over public order, particularly in communally sensitive districts. The Supreme Court has on multiple occasions underscored that fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions but cannot be curtailed through executive fiat alone.
Constitutional scholars note that the Allahabad High Court’s January ruling aligns with established jurisprudence that private religious observance within homes does not ordinarily require state sanction. They add that the court’s insistence on adherence to its directives reinforces the principle of separation of powers, under which administrative authorities are bound to implement judicial decisions unless stayed or set aside by a higher forum.
The present proceedings do not adjudicate on the merits of any specific gathering but focus on whether the district administration complied with binding directions. If the court finds wilful disobedience, it may proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Conversely, if the officials demonstrate that their actions were based on distinct factual circumstances not covered by the January order, the bench could discharge the notices.