The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a person does not need prior permission from any authority to hold a peaceful prayer gathering at their private residence, quashing three police notices issued against two Christian men from Janjgir-Champa district and directing authorities not to interfere in their religious practice.
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi passed the order on 24 March 2026 in Writ Petition (WPC) No. 1281/2026, filed by Badri Prasad Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu, both residents of Ward No. 9, Village Godhna, Tehsil and Thana Navagadh, Janjgir-Champa.
The two petitioners, who are relatives, own adjacent plots on Khasra No. 3413/2 in Godhna village. Since 2016, they have been holding Christian prayer meetings in a hall constructed on the first floor of their home. The police, however, began issuing notices under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, attempting to stop the gatherings. Notices were issued on 18 October 2025, 22 November 2025, and 1 February 2026.
Advocate Preetam Singh, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the prayer meetings involved no illegal activity and caused no breach of peace. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat of Godhna had initially issued a No Objection Certificate for the meetings, but later withdrew it under pressure. The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking cancellation of the notices, quashing of an order dated 7 December 2025, and protection of their fundamental rights under Article 19.
The state, represented by Deputy Government Advocate Shobhit Mishra, argued that criminal cases were registered against the petitioners and that they had previously served jail time. The state also contended that no prior permission had been obtained from a competent authority before holding the prayer meetings, which it offered as justification for the police notices. The state sought time to file a detailed reply.
The court declined to grant that time, noting the limited and specific nature of the grievance. In its order, the court held: “There is no law that prevents any person from offering prayer or holding a prayer meeting at their own home.” It further clarified that if a prayer meeting causes noise or a law-and-order situation, the relevant authorities may take action as per law, but interference on the mere ground that a prayer meeting is being held is not justified.
The court directed respondents and police officers not to interfere in the civil rights of the petitioners and not to harass them in the name of inquiry or investigation. All three contested notices were quashed. On the question of the withdrawn NOC, the court said it was not inclined to examine that issue separately.
The petition was allowed to the extent indicated.
