PRAYAGRAJ, Feb. 3 -- The Allahabad high court recently ruled that no permission was required for holding a religious prayer meeting within a private premises in Uttar Pradesh as long as the activity remains within private premises and the gathering does not spill into public spaces. However, the court clarified that if any occasion arises where it has to spill over the public road or public property, in such a situation, the petitioner shall intimate the police and take any requisite permission under the law. The court was dealing with two similar petitions moved by Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust, both Christian bodies, seeking holding of prayers within private premises but the state failed to act on their representations seeking permission for it. Disposing of both the writ petitions, a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the above ruling after taking into account Uttar Pradesh government's submission that no such requirement of seeking permission exists in law. On this, the court noted: "Instructions have come from the state government. It is very clearly stated that there is no prohibition on the petitioner to conduct religious prayer meetings within his private premises. It is also stated that equal protection of the law is accorded by instrumentalities of the state to all citizens across the state without discrimination with regard to religion or any other consideration." The high court ruled that no permission was required under the law to pursue an act, which is part of the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which deals with religious freedom to citizens. However, the court clarified that the same is subject to the fact that religious prayer meeting is carried out only within the private premises of the property. It disposed of the petitions with the observation that the petitioners have a right to conduct the prayers as per convenience on their private premises without any permission from the state government. "However, it is a concomitant duty on the state to ensure that property, rights and life of the petitioners are protected at all cost. How this is done is entirely discretion of the police," the high court clarified in its judgment dated January 27....