Can't Deny 'Saqlain Miyan' Followers To Observe 'Urs' Just Because It Coincides With 'Navaratri': Allahabad HC Sets Aside Bareilly Admin's Order

The court was essentially dealing with a plea filed by Aastan-E-Aaliyah Saqlainiya Sharafatiya and another, who wanted to observe Urs in the memory of Hazrat Shah Mohammad Saqlain Miyan Huzoor, the grandson of Hazrat Shah Sharafat Ali, who died in October last year.

He was described as a Sufi Scholar with a substantial following in the region around district Bareilly. As per the religious practice prevalent amongst the Sufis, his first Urs is to be observed on the 08th and 09th of October 2024.

However, in the impugned order passed by City Magistrate Bareilly, rejecting permission to observe the Urs, it was, inter alia, reasoned that if permission is granted to observe the Urs, a large congregation is expected, leading to a new practice.

It was also stated that the Urs Observance would coincide with Navratri festivities, with numerous Durga Pooja Pandals and Ramleela performances planned throughout the city.

At the outset, the Court noted that the observance of Urs would not be a new practice amongst the Sufis. In this regard, the Court noted that the impugned order had not reasoned that Hazrat Shah Mohammad Saqlain Miyan Huzoor was not a Sufi Scholar or did not die on 20.10.2023.

“…it is also not disputed that his first Urs may be observed on 8th and 9th October, 2024 according to religious practices. To that extent, the City Magistrate, Bareilly, may have erred in reading the application as one seeking to set a new religious practice,” the Court observed.

Further, the Court also opined that merely because Urs observance would coincide with a religious festival (Navaratri) may not be a ground to deny the believers or followers of Hazrat Shah Mohammad Saqlain Miyan Huzoor their right to observe their religious practice during that period in accordance with the law.

Regarding the objection that "Chadron ka Juloos" would be taken out accompanied by loud music played on public roads, pathways/Gullies, etc., the Court noted that the petitioners were undertaking that no such occurrence would take place, and to this effect, they were ready and willing to file their written undertaking before the City Magistrate.

The Court also found the objection raised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, regarding the inconvenience to the college students as wholly imaginary, as the division noted that the college administration had already given its No-Objection to the petitioners to observe the Urs on its ground.

The Court also noted that neither details of any specific complaint received by the district administration from any quarter had been disclosed in the impugned order, and even if any such complaint had been received, no disclosure of such fact had been made to the petitioners, and no opportunity had been given to the petitioners to meet that objection.

In view of this prima facie finding that the impugned order had been passed hurriedly without due consideration of the relevant aspects, the Court set it aside.

The court further gave the following directions:

• Matter is remitted to the City Magistrate Bareilly to make available to the petitioners all objections that it may have received to the proposed o
• Observance of Urs on 08th and 09th October 2024, not later than 11.00 a.m. tomorrow. The petitioners may thereupon appear before the City Magistrate by 01.00 p.m. along with all their undertakings and replies, if any.
• For that purpose, they are permitted to be represented through their lawyers.
• The petitioners undertake that only authorised representatives may appear, who may not exceed 10 persons in all, before the City Magistrate.
• No crowd shall be garnered in that regard.
• The City Magistrate may thereupon pass a fresh reasoned order keeping in mind our observations made above, by 6.00 p.m.
• The petitioners further undertake, permission if granted, would strictly be abided especially with respect to proposed timings as also other conditions that may be imposed by the City Magistrate.

With this, the petition was disposed of.

Counsels for the petitioner: Senior Counsel Anil Tiwari, assisted by Kabeer Tiwari

Counsel for the state: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Dr. D.K. Tiwari

Case title - Aastan-E-Aaliyah Saqlainiya Sharafatiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others

Case citation :

Click Here ToRead/Download Order