4 min readMar 17, 2026 04:09 PM IST
First published on: Mar 17, 2026 at 04:09 PM IST
In the annals of the Indian judiciary, there are judges whose transfer orders become footnotes to their courage. The order by Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan in the Allahabad High Court in Tarik Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh leaves no room for ambiguity.
Barely weeks after reminding administrators that they must either enforce the rule of law or seek transfer, Justice Sreedharan has now ordered round-the-clock armed protection for Haseen Khan, a Muslim man from Bareilly, allegedly stopped from offering Namaz inside his own home. When a contempt petition alleged that Khan was picked up by police while praying, threatened with demolition, and forced to sign blank papers, the court acted swiftly.
Two armed guards shall protect Khan round the clock, accompanying him wherever he goes. And then came the warning from Justice Sreedharan — any incident of violence afflicting Khan or his property shall be “prima facie understood to have occurred at the instance of the State.”
In a separate case in February, an order was passed in Munazir Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a bench comprising Justice Sreedharan and Justice Nandan rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s attempt to restrict the number of worshippers offering Namaz during Ramzan at a mosque in Sambhal district. The state administration had permitted only 20 persons to offer prayers at the premises, despite the likelihood of larger gatherings during the holy month.
The state defended the restriction by citing “perceived law and order concerns”. But the bench observed that if local authorities genuinely believed they could not maintain law and order while allowing citizens to practice their faith, they had two honourable options — resignation or transfer. The court categorically said that “it is the duty of the State to ensure that the rule of law prevails under every circumstance” and to “ensure that every community is able to offer worship peacefully in the designated place of worship and if it is a private property as [has] already been held by the Court earlier, to perform worship without any permission from the State.”
On March 16, the court asked uncomfortable questions that cut through administrative evasion. During the hearing, it drew an unassailable parallel that laid bare the state’s discriminatory approach. “How can Muslims be stopped from offering Namaz on the roof of their homes? The rule of law must treat all citizens equally, and the constitution must prevail,” Justice Sreedharan observed orally.
Then came the analogy from the court that reduced the state’s “law and order” argument to absurdity. “Are such restrictions placed in temples? A stampede occurred at the Maha Kumbh Mela, did you restrict two persons per three square feet? If Hindus are praying in their houses, can they be stopped from doing so?”
The message was simple yet profound — if millions can congregate at a river without numerical caps, why are 20 deemed too many for a room? The state may dispute whether the premises are a mosque or a house, the bench clarified, but the fundamental right to pray on private property remains inviolable regardless of the label. Only when prayers spill onto public roads, the court noted, does the state acquire any right to intervene.
Although the protection for Haseen Khan is interim, it has already made its mark. The order reaffirms what constitutional courts are meant to do — stand between an overreaching executive and the fundamental rights of citizens. They remind us that law and order is not a magic wand that administrators can wave to suspend constitutional freedoms, but a responsibility they must discharge precisely when things get difficult.
The writer is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
