Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging police orders refusing permission for a Kavad Yatra on a specific route in Nagpur. The petitioner, the organiser of Bharat Mata Sewa Sangathan, had applied for permission to hold a religious procession on 16 August 2026 covering approximately 3.5 km, from Kalyaneshwar Temple to Ganesh Shiv Temple, carrying consecrated water for Jalabhishek. The police authorities, through the Senior Police Inspector, Tahsil, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 3, did not grant permission for that route and instead suggested an alternative route starting from Jagannath Budhwari. The petitioner contended that the refusal was made without notice or hearing and that India being secular, religious processions could be conducted on all roads. The petitioner relied on Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, and Ramasamy Udayar v. District Collector to argue that the presence of mosques or other places of worship cannot justify denial of a religious procession. The State, represented by the Government Pleader, submitted that there was no refusal to hold the procession but only a refusal of the particular route, that no fundamental right entitled the petitioner to use a particular road, and that police administration could suggest an alternate route to maintain law and public order. The State placed reliance on Sharif Ahmad v. State of U.P., State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, and Bharat Mukti Morcha v. State of Maharashtra. The police reports highlighted eight mosques, a dargah, an incident on 22 January 2024 involving assault near Jama Masjid during the Ayodhya Ram Temple inauguration celebration, and riots on 17 March 2025 following the burning of a symbolic grave of Aurangzeb. The High Court found that the petitioner's claim of absolute refusal was misconceived because the police had permitted the procession but only on a different route. The court observed that there was no fundamental right to insist on a particular road for religious rites and that police authorities, being best placed to assess law and order, could suggest alternate routes. The court's reasoning indicated deference to administrative assessment of communal sensitivities. The available extract of the judgment does not contain the final operative order, but the reasoning clearly favoured the respondent police administration's route regulation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Religious Procession and Route Selection - No absolute right to use a particular road for religious rites - Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(b) and 25 - Petitioner sought permission for Kavad Yatra on a specific route passing through areas with mosques and a dargah. Police permitted the procession but suggested an alternate route. Court held that refusal of the preferred route did not amount to prohibition of religious practice and that no fundamental right entitled the petitioner to insist on a particular road (Paras 14-16). B) Constitutional Law - Regulation of Processions for Public Order - Police power to suggest alternate route - Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(b) and 25 - Police reports cited eight mosques, one dargah, a 2024 communal incident and 2025 riots along the proposed route. Court reasoned that law and order is primarily within the domain of administrative authorities who are best placed to assess local sensitivities, and courts should not normally interfere with such assessments absent arbitrariness (Paras 12, 17). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Orders - Deference to police assessment - Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(b) and 25 - Petitioner argued religious freedom permitted processions on all roads; respondent contended route regulation is permissible for public order. Court observed that the impugned communication only diverted the route and did not prohibit the procession, thereby upholding police discretion to maintain communal harmony (Paras 12, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether refusal to permit Kavad Yatra on petitioner's preferred route and suggestion of an alternate route violates Articles 25 and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution; whether police can restrict or divert a religious procession on grounds of law and order and communal sensitivity; whether courts should interfere with police assessment of law and order in matters of procession routes
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available extract
Law Points
- No fundamental right to insist on a particular route for religious procession
- police administration may regulate and suggest alternate route to maintain law and public order
- mere existence of places of worship of other communities is not a valid ground to deny permission but can be considered with adverse police reports and antecedents
- courts should not normally interfere with law and order assessments by administrative authorities
