Religion not above ‘public order’: Patna High Court denies plea for 300-devotee procession

“The reasonable restrictions denotes legal limits on individual rights and freedom by the state to balance personal liberty with collective public welfare, national security, and social order. Hence, no Constitutional right is absolute; unchecked freedom can cause great harm to society at large,” it added.

Mahabiri Julus is a centuries-old religious procession in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar featuring displays of flags, martial arts, and weaponry to honour Lord Hanuman. This year, it is expected to be held in September.

Justice Alok Kumar said the freedom to practice and profess religion is subject to public order, morality, and health.

From 200 devotees to just 5

According to the facts, a devotee of Akhara No 1, a Hindu religious group of Hathaura village, had stated that a licence for conducting Mahabiri Julus on the 11th day of Bhadrapad Krishna Paksha had been granted to the devotees of the said Akhara every year since 1958.

It was his case that while 200 devotees were permitted in the years 2012 and 2013, the number was progressively and arbitrarily curtailed by the police, without assigning reasons, to 150 in 2014, 100 in 2015, and eventually to a mere five devotees from 2023 onwards, along with an alteration of the traditional route.

He sought orders from the court, directing the authorities to grant him a licence to conduct the Mahabiri Julus of Akhara No 1 through the traditional Patna High Court route fixed long back in Hathaura under Husainganj Police Station in Siwan district, and to allow at least 300 devotees to participate in future processions.

Devotee’s case vs law and order concerns

Advocate Harshvardhan Shivsundaram, appearing for the devotee, submitted that the licence granted to Akhara No.1 had always covered a route on which no complaint of any breach of peace had been reported.

He said that during a peace committee meeting on August 16, 2023, the devotees were compelled to agree to limit their number to five and to alter their traditional route under the threat of denial of licence altogether. He added that representations made to the Siwan district magistrate on August 20 and 23, 2023 received no response, leaving the devotee with no option but to approach the high court.

Relying on a precedent, the counsel submitted that once a community’s right to take out a religious procession along a customary route is established, it cannot be curtailed just because another community opposes it. He said the police are instead duty-bound to protect the lawful exercise of such a right and cannot “abdicate” their authority before a body of miscreants.

The counsel for the devotees argued that the police had exaggerated the law and order concerns by clubbing devotees of multiple Akharas together and that he was not named as an accused in the relevant criminal case. He also pointed to the police recommending a 1,000-person Tazia procession on the same route, alleging discriminatory treatment.

The state said the restriction was necessary to maintain law and order, as 1700-2,000 people had participated between 2015 and 2022, despite permission being limited to five, leading to several cases. It also alleged that in 2024, the crowd set fire to a government vehicle and pelted stones at police personnel.

Freedom can’t override public order: HC

The court said the freedom to practice and profess religion under Articles 25 (religious freedom) and 26 (freedom to religious groups to manage their own affairs) is subject to public order, morality, and health. It said that while religious freedom must be protected, maintaining public peace, particularly in residential areas, is an equally important role in regulating activities that may harm public health and welfare.

It held that the claim that only five devotees might be allowed in future was “premature and unreasonable” as many restrictions would depend on the law-and-order situation prevailing when permission for a procession is actually sought. The court thus dismissed the plea.