PRAYAGRAJ, May 3 -- The Allahabad high court has held that religious prayers can be organised on private property if they are occasional and non-disruptive, but when such property is used for regular or organised congregational activities, it may invite government regulation. Dismissing a writ petition filed by Aseen, a resident of Sambhal, a division bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad said that where such activity on private property becomes regular and is organised on a large scale, it may amount to a change in the nature of use of the premises and would be subject to applicable laws, including planning and local regulations. The court also noted that the introduction or expansion of a religious practice not previously prevalent, particularly where it disturbs the existing social balance, is not protected under Articles 25 (religious freedom) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs and institutions) of the Constitution. "State is not required to wait for an actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures where such activity is likely to affect public life," the bench observed. The petitioner had requested the court to direct the authorities concerned to provide security and permission to offer namaz on a piece of land in a village in Sambhal district. He claimed ownership of the private property based on a gift deed dated June 2023. The state government informed the court that namaz has traditionally been offered at the site only on the occasion of Eid, and that no restriction has been imposed on this established practice. However, it was further submitted that the petitioner was attempting to introduce regular, large-scale congregational prayers by inviting people from within and outside the village. In its order, the court noted that while the Constitution protects the right to practise religion, it also makes clear that this right is subject to public order, morality and health. The court stressed that the right to practise religion is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner that does not affect others or disrupt normal public life. The bench also said that the state is constitutionally entitled, and in appropriate cases duty-bound, to prevent the use of public land without lawful authority. "The test is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences. This approach is consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all religions and equal application of law," the court said in its order dated April 6. "While the state must permit private worship, it is equally bound to regulate activities that affect public order, whether on public land or on private premises. Maintaining this balance is essential to the working of Articles 25 and 26 in a constitutional system," the court remarked....