‘Battle Between Law, Faith And Politics’: Namaz Curbs In UP Spark Fresh Controversy

ALVIDA JUMMA: A SCENE OF DEVOTION AMIDST RESTRICTIONS

On Alvida Jumma, the final Friday of Ramadan, an air of solemn devotion filled mosques and Eidgahs across Uttar Pradesh. At Aligarh’s historic Eidgah, thousands of worshippers arrived early, many clad in traditional white attire and wearing skullcaps. Security was tight, with police checkpoints at every entry point to ensure that no one attempted to offer prayers on the streets. The district administration had arranged two separate prayer sessions at 7:00 AM and 7:45 AM to accommodate the large turnout.

In Meerut, SP Vipin Tada issued strict warnings against public Namaz, directing worshippers to the Faiz-e-Aam Inter College grounds, as well as designated mosques and Eidgahs. Heavy police deployment — including paramilitary forces, the Rapid Action Force (RAF), and the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) — was visible at sensitive locations to prevent violations.

Despite the government’s firm stance, murmurs of discontent were evident among worshippers. A local elder in Sambhal, speaking after prayers, voiced his concerns: “For years, we have offered Namaz in open areas because our mosques are not large enough. The government should have facilitated alternative spaces instead of banning prayers on roads."

Although the prayers concluded peacefully, the controversy over the restrictions has already taken centre stage, sparking a wider debate on religious freedom versus administrative control.

WHY THE BAN? SAFETY CONCERNS OR POLITICAL STRATEGY?

The Namaz restrictions in Uttar Pradesh were not an abrupt decision, but part of a broader pattern of measures introduced by the state administration in recent years. The government has defended the move on two primary grounds — public safety and traffic management.

“A peace committee meeting was held in Kotwali, Sambhal, with people from all religions and communities. It was clearly communicated and ensured that prayers will be conducted inside mosques and Eidgahs only, and not on the streets. Issues related to electricity and water were also addressed and will be resolved in time. Compliance with the rules was also emphasised. The zonal sector arrangement remains in place as before, and an adequate police force will be deployed. It will be ensured that prayers are not conducted on rooftops," ASP Shrish Chandra stated during a peace committee meeting held at Sadar Kotwali, Sambhal.

In districts such as Meerut and Aligarh, authorities pointed to past incidents where rooftops had collapsed under the weight of too many people, posing a significant safety hazard.

However, the explanations offered by the Uttar Pradesh government have failed to reassure many in the Muslim community, and opposition leaders see the ban as politically motivated. Critics argue that the state government, led by the BJP, is selectively targeting Muslim religious practices under the pretext of maintaining law and order.

At a recent peace committee meeting in Sambhal, officials sought to clarify that the ban was not against Namaz itself, but rather intended to ensure that prayers are conducted in designated areas such as mosques and Eidgahs. Still, these justifications have not convinced those who believe the government’s actions reflect a broader agenda to regulate and restrict public expressions of Islamic faith.

POLITICAL FALLOUT

The government’s move has triggered strong political reactions, particularly from the Samajwadi Party (SP), which has a significant Muslim support base. Sambhal MP Ziaur Rahman Barq accused the BJP-led government of attempting to curtail Muslim religious freedoms under the pretext of maintaining law and order.

“This is not about safety. The BJP government does not want Muslims to pray in public and is systematically erasing our traditions," Barq alleged, adding that he would challenge the decision in the Allahabad High Court.

The ruling BJP, however, defended the decision, with party leaders stating that the move was intended to bring uniformity in the regulation of religious gatherings in public spaces. A BJP spokesperson in Lucknow said: “Every community must follow the rules. The administration has not banned Namaz, but only ensured it takes place in designated areas. Similar restrictions apply to religious events of other faiths too."

Despite the government’s defence, Opposition parties — including the Congress and AIMIM — have criticised the restrictions, calling them politically motivated and an attempt to polarise communities ahead of the upcoming elections.

WHAT LEGAL EXPERTS SAY

Senior advocate S Mohammed Haider from Lucknow, a constitutional law expert, weighed in on the controversy. Terming it “a battle between law, faith and politics," he stated that the Uttar Pradesh government’s directive raises important questions about the balance between religious freedom and public order.

He explained that under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, every citizen has the right to freely practise, profess, and propagate their religion. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interests of public order, morality, and health.

“The government can regulate religious gatherings in public spaces if they pose safety risks or disrupt public order. However, such regulations must be applied uniformly and not selectively target any one religious group," Haider pointed out. He further added that if the administration fails to provide adequate alternative spaces for prayer, the move could be legally challenged as a violation of fundamental rights.

Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh Police have issued strict warnings, stating that FIRs will be registered against those violating the directives. Additionally, the passports and driving licences of violators could be cancelled, preventing them from travelling abroad, including for the Hajj pilgrimage. This unprecedented warning has further escalated tensions, with community leaders questioning why such strict penalties were being proposed for a religious activity.

On the threat of FIRs and passport cancellations, Haider remarked that such punitive actions would be disproportionate and legally questionable. If challenged in court, he believes the judiciary would likely seek a more balanced approach, ensuring both public convenience and the right to worship.