No Curbs On Religious Activities At Bahraich Dargah, Only Permission For Mela Outside Shrine Campus Denied: UP Govt To Allahabad HC

The restriction, it clarified, applies solely to the Mela held outside the Dargah campus, which is primarily commercial in nature, involving activities like the rental allotment of temporary shops, etc.

The Court was also informed that the district administration is unable to provide the necessary infrastructure or ensure a secure environment for the month-long Mela, and that allowing it could lead to a serious law and order or public order situation. Hence, the permission was denied, however, the same has nothing to do with religious activities inside the Dargah premises.

"Religious activities inside the Dargah campus are not being interfered. The Mela which is being organized outside the campus is a secular activity. Religious activities at the Dargah have not been interfered in any manner. What has been declined is permission to hold the Mela outside Dargah campus which primarily involves commercial activities such as allotment of shops for rent, etc., therefore, there is no violation of any constitutional or legal rights by the impugned order. Reasonable restrictions can always be put by the State in the interest of public orders, etc. as has been done herein," the counsel for the UP Govt submitted.

These submissions were made before a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, which was hearing a writ plea filed by the Management Committee of Dargah Sharif, Bahraich and four other UP residents over the decision of the District Administration to refuse nod for the Mela citing law and order concerns.

Read more about the arguments of the Dargah Committee here : Bahraich Dargah Sharif Committee Moves Allahabad HC Over Denial Of Permission For Annual Syed Salar Mela

In brief, it is the case of the petitioners, represented by Advocate Lalta Prasad Misra and Syed Husain, that the Mela is rooted in long-standing tradition and it has been a State-recognised Mela since 1987, and is central to the faith of lakhs of devotees, including Hindus and Muslims.

It was also argued that the administration cited law and order concerns are baseless and that maintaining public order is the duty of the administration itself.

Importantly, the bench was told that the Dargah Committee had not sought formal permission to hold the Mela; rather, it had only requested the district administration to convene a joint meeting of concerned officials to plan the organisation of the event.

It was also pointed out that the Devi Patan Mela in neighbouring Balrampur was peacefully conduct recently with the help of the district administration, and even the CM had attended the said program.

On the other hand, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rajesh submitted that the dargah committee had indeed sent a letter for making necessary arrangements for the mela and it is in that context that the relevant reports were requisitioned from the concerned officials and based on the inputs received from them, including from the Local Intelligence Unit, the impugned decision had been taken.

It was categorically submitted by him that it is not possible to provide necessary facilities nor to ensure a secure atmosphere during one month long period and there is a serious possibility of law and order or public order situation being created.

Lastly, it was contended that there is no restrictions on religious activities within the Dargah premises and therefore, there is no violation of any constitutional or legal rights by the impugned order and that merely reasonable restrictions were being put in place.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench observed that the arrangements for the Mela are the responsibility of the local administration and since they have expressed their inability to provide the necessary facilities and maintain law and order, it would not be possible to assess the arbitrariness of the decision unless affidavits are filed by the opposing parties.

The Court further noted that while the petition does raise important questions as to the authority of the District Magistrate to interfere in such matters or to refuse to grant permission but, prima facie, the division bench said, the impugned order appears to have been passed in response to the letter of the petitioner no. 1 itself.

The Court, however, added that how far it is justified, whether it is malafide or violative of any constitutional or any other legal right are all issues which will require a response from the opposite parties, and the same cannot be decided on the first day.

Furthermore, the Court also denied petitioner's plea for an interim relief (at this satge) as it noted that it is the local administration which is best suited to take a considered decision as to how far it may be able to cope up with the situation where the Urs/Mela and that the Courts aren't expert on these issues.

“…we are not inclined to grant any interim relief in view of the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, especially the LIU reports and other incidents which have happened in recent past and the sensitivities, as mentioned therein, especially as, Courts are not experts in such matters and it is the local administration which is best suited to take a considered decision as to how far it may be able to cope up with the situation where the Urs/Mela would be organized for about a month and the congregation would be of about 4-5 lakh people spread over an area of 5 kms…”, the Court observed as it noted that granting any interim relief at this stage without calling for a response from the opposite parties would not be justified.

The Bench has, however, left the prayer of interim relief open and had listed the matter for hearing next on May 12.