AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has questioned objections to Muslims offering namaz on roads, arguing that any restriction on religious activity in public spaces must apply equally to all faiths rather than target one community.
Addressing an Eid Milap gathering in Hyderabad on Friday, Owaisi invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. He said public order concerns could not be applied selectively and asked why similar criticism was not directed at religious processions, festivals and gatherings that also occupy roads and public spaces.
Owaisi’s remarks came amid renewed political debate over the use of streets for religious observances, particularly Friday prayers and Eid congregations. The issue has become a recurring flashpoint in several states, where administrations have sought to restrict prayers spilling onto roads, citing traffic management, public order and inconvenience to commuters. Supporters of such restrictions argue that public roads cannot be blocked for any group, while critics say enforcement often appears uneven.
The Hyderabad MP said Muslims were being singled out when namaz was held in public spaces only on specific occasions, such as Friday prayers or Eid, and not as a daily practice. He drew a comparison with religious yatras and festival processions that pass through major roads, sometimes requiring traffic diversions, police deployment and temporary barricading. His central argument was that equality before the law must guide any regulation of public religious activity.
Article 25 protects religious freedom, but the right is not absolute. It is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of the Constitution. This framework gives governments the authority to regulate religious practices in public spaces when they affect civic order, safety or the rights of others. At the same time, the constitutional test requires neutrality, proportionality and non-discrimination in enforcement.
The debate over namaz on roads has sharpened because it sits at the intersection of religious freedom, civic inconvenience and majoritarian politics. Public prayers are often defended as a practical response to overcrowding at mosques during large congregations. Opponents argue that roads are public infrastructure and should not be used in a way that disrupts movement, emergency access or commercial activity.
Owaisi framed the issue as one of equal treatment rather than an unrestricted claim to public land. His comments suggested that if administrations decide that roads cannot be used for worship, the rule should also cover processions, devotional marches, festival gatherings, loud public celebrations and other faith-based events that use the same civic space. The argument is likely to resonate with minority groups that view selective policing as a marker of political bias.
The comments also carry wider political significance because AIMIM has positioned itself as a vocal critic of what it describes as discriminatory governance and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Owaisi has repeatedly accused rival parties of ignoring violence, hate speech and exclusion faced by Muslims while focusing disproportionately on symbolic religious issues. His latest intervention adds to that broader campaign, placing religious freedom and equal citizenship at the centre of the debate.
For state governments, the legal and administrative challenge lies in balancing competing rights. Citizens have the right to practise their faith, but others have the right to access roads, markets, workplaces and public services without undue obstruction. Courts have often recognised that religious activities in public spaces may be regulated, especially where they affect law and order or the rights of other citizens. The unresolved question is whether regulation is being applied uniformly.
Public processions by various communities have long required permissions, designated routes and police coordination. Authorities routinely impose conditions on timings, sound levels, routes and crowd control. Similar conditions are also applied to large congregational prayers in many cities, particularly during Eid, where traffic diversions and security arrangements are planned in advance. The controversy intensifies when one form of public religious expression is treated as inherently problematic while others are accommodated as tradition.
Owaisi’s remarks are also likely to feed into the political discourse ahead of future electoral contests, where questions of identity, religious freedom and public order remain potent. AIMIM’s core support base includes voters who see the party as a defender of minority rights, while its critics accuse it of sharpening communal divisions. The namaz debate gives Owaisi another platform to challenge the ruling establishment’s handling of religious issues.
The broader policy question is whether administrations can create a clear, faith-neutral framework for all public religious activity. Such a framework would need to define permissible use of roads, crowd limits, sound restrictions, emergency access requirements and penalties for violations. Without transparent and uniform rules, disputes over namaz, processions and festival gatherings are likely to remain vulnerable to political mobilisation.
