No Absolute Right To Choose Route For Religious Procession: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Police Restriction

"The exercise of a right to practice one's religion is one thing and to practice it in a particular way is different. There is absolutely no fundamental right to the practice of one's religion, that may entitle them or the community to use a particular road for the performance of religious rites." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, held that while the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom to practice religion, no citizen or organization has an absolute fundamental right to insist on a specific route for a religious procession if it threatens public order or local peace.

A bench comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas observed that administrative authorities are the best judges to assess law and order situations based on local ground realities and historical antecedents.

The petitioner, an organizer of the 'Bharat Mata Sewa Sangathan', had challenged a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, which denied permission to conduct a 'Kavad Yatra' through a specific route. The police authorities had suggested an alternative route, citing concerns over communal sensitivity, narrow roads, and the presence of places of worship belonging to other communities. The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing that as a secular nation, religious processions must be allowed through all public streets.

The primary questions before the court were whether the denial of a specific route amounts to an infringement of Article 25 of the Constitution and whether the police administration holds the authority to regulate religious processions based on law and order assessments.

Court Explains Scope Of Article 25

The bench clarified that the petitioner’s grievance was fundamentally misconceived because the police had not prohibited the Kavad Yatra itself, but had merely imposed reasonable restrictions on the route. The court noted that the right to practice religion is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of other sections of the population to live in peace and tranquility.

"The earmarking of routes to take out processions, that involve a multitude of people, is a matter that essentially relates to law and order, for which the civil and the police administration bear responsibility," the bench observed. By invoking Article 25, the court emphasized that such rights are subject to public order and the needs of the collective society.

State's Authority To Regulate Public Order

The court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, highlighting that courts should not normally interfere in matters of law and order, which fall squarely within the domain of the administration. The judges stressed that past conduct and communal antecedents in the specific locality provide sufficient material for authorities to act in anticipation of potential disturbances.

"Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order," the court remarked.

Deficiencies In The Petitioner's Application

The court further noted that the petitioner failed to provide basic logistical details, such as traffic management plans, the nature of sound equipment to be used, and the number of volunteers responsible for crowd control. Furthermore, the court observed that the Kavad Yatra intended to culminate at a private temple without the owner's consent.

"Whenever there is an apprehension of danger to 'greater community interest' or 'interest of the collective or social order', it is a situation which threatens the public order which warrants the abridgement of right to take out the procession."

The court concluded that the police administration’s decision to suggest an alternative route was not arbitrary or excessive but was a measured response to ensure the protection of life and property. The petition was consequently dismissed, and the rule was discharged, affirming the state's power to regulate the movement of processions to preserve communal harmony.

Date of Decision: 14 August 2026