Regarding the restriction on the number of worshippers allowed in a mosque in Sambhal, the Allahabad High Court has stated that if the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP) are unable to maintain law and order, they should resign. Prior to this, in a similar case, the Court had also summoned the DM and SSP of Bareilly.
‘…तो DM-SP को दे देना चाहिए इस्तीफा’, संभल मस्जिद में नमाजियों की संख्या सीमित करने वाले आदेश पर HC सख्त
Reprimanding the police and district administration of Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has stated that if the Superintendent of Police (SP) and the District Collector are incapable of maintaining law and order, they should either resign from their posts or seek a transfer elsewhere. The High Court asserted that the primary duty of the district administration is to maintain law and order, not to evade a problem by imposing restrictions.
The High Court issued these observations and orders in response to a petition alleging that the police and district administration in Sambhal were preventing worshippers from offering Namaz (prayers) at a mosque, permitting entry to only a limited number of worshippers.
The High Court passed this order in connection with a petition highlighting that the Sambhal administration had imposed a ban on offering Namaz at the mosque situated on Gata No. 291, stipulating that only a limited number of worshippers would be permitted to enter.
During the hearing, the police argued that failure to impose such restrictions could lead to a deterioration of the law and order situation. Expressing strong displeasure at this contention, a bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan remarked that if such were indeed the case, the District Magistrate (DM) and the SP should either resign or seek a transfer to another location.
The Court unequivocally stated: “If the local officials—namely, the Superintendent of Police and the Collector—feel that a law and order situation might arise necessitating a restriction on the number of worshippers within the premises, then they should either resign from their posts or seek a transfer out of Sambhal; provided, of course, that they feel they are incapable of upholding the rule of law. It is the duty of the State to ensure that every community is able to worship peacefully at their designated place of worship; and if the premises constitute private property—as has been clarified by the Court on previous occasions—then they are entitled to worship therein without requiring any permission from the State.”
Furthermore, while quashing the administration’s order, the High Court reiterated that it is the obligation of the State to ensure that every community enjoys the right to peacefully offer prayers or worship at their respective religious sites.
What is the full background of the case? This matter came to light during the hearing of a petition filed by Munazir Khan in the Allahabad High Court. The hearing was conducted by a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddhartha Nandan. The petition stated that people were being prevented from offering Namaz (prayers) on Plot No. 291 during the month of Ramadan. The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that a mosque exists at that location and that people regularly offer their prayers there.
Conversely, the government counsel submitted to the Court that, apprehending a deterioration in law and order, the administration had issued an order limiting the number of worshippers. However, the Court did not accept this argument, observing that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the administration. The next hearing in this matter has been scheduled for March 16.
Bareilly DM and SSP Summoned in a Similar Case
Just a day earlier—on March 12—a bench of the Allahabad High Court presided over by Justice Atul Sreedharan had summoned the District Magistrate (DM) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Bareilly in connection with a separate case from that district. The Court warned that if they failed to appear in person, non-bailable warrants could be issued against them.
Summoning Bareilly DM Avinash Singh and SSP Anurag Arya, the Allahabad High Court has directed them to appear before the Court on March 23 at 2:00 PM. The High Court has deemed both officials prima facie guilty of contempt of court.
The case in question pertains to actions taken by the authorities during prayers offered in the month of January. The DM and SSP stand accused of preventing the offering of congregational prayers within a private residence. On January 16, 2026, in the village of Mohammad Ganj in Bareilly, members of the Muslim community were offering prayers at the residence of Haseen Khan; acting upon complaints received from Hindu families, the police had intervened and halted the prayers. The Court has taken on record a petition seeking the quashing of proceedings, which was filed in the High Court in connection with this incident. It is alleged that the police detained Haseen Khan while he was offering prayers and subsequently issued a challan (citation) against him.
Haseen Khan petitioned the Court for protection regarding his family and property. The High Court directed that two armed guards be deployed to provide security to Haseen Khan round-the-clock. The Court further stipulated that these armed guards must accompany him wherever he goes. The Court has directed that a copy of the order also be provided to the Office of the Advocate General, so that the concerned officials may be duly informed.
Representing the government, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi stated that permission to offer Namaz on Haseen Khan’s private property was sought on January 16. However, following complaints from Hindu families, he was restrained from offering Namaz within the private premises.
Follow Us on… 
+