Quick Read
The Patna High Court has held that the right to take out a religious procession is protected under Articles 19(1)(b) and 25 of the Constitution, but the right is not absolute. Authorities can impose reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and ensure public safety.
The Court refused to interfere with restrictions imposed on the ‘Mahabiri Julus’ in Siwan, observing that the number of participants permitted in future processions would depend on the law-and-order situation prevailing when permission is sought.
Introduction
The Patna High Court has reiterated that constitutional protection for religious practices does not give individuals an unrestricted right to conduct religious processions in any manner or with any number of participants. Justice Alok Kumar made the observation while hearing a petition seeking permission for devotees of an Akhara in Hathaura village, Siwan, to conduct the traditional Mahabiri Julus through its traditional route with at least 300 participants.
The petitioner claimed that the procession had been permitted annually since 1958 but that the number of participants had gradually been restricted, eventually allowing only five devotees from 2023 onwards.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether restrictions on the route and number of participants in a religious procession violated the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(b) and 25.
Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, while Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion.
However, these rights are expressly subject to reasonable restrictions, including considerations of public order, morality and health.
The State argued that the restrictions were imposed because of law-and-order concerns. It alleged that large crowds had participated in the procession despite the sanctioned limit and that incidents involving stone-pelting and damage to a government vehicle had occurred.
Court Decision
The High Court held that the right to conduct a religious procession is a recognised constitutional right, but it cannot be exercised without restrictions where public order and safety are at stake. The Court observed that “no Constitutional right is absolute” and that reasonable restrictions can be imposed to balance individual freedoms with public welfare and social order.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, the Court also emphasised that constitutional protection of religious freedom does not necessarily extend to every particular manner in which a religious practice is sought to be performed.
The Court therefore declined to interfere with the restrictions concerning the Mahabiri Julus.
Importantly, the Court did not hold that only five devotees could participate in all future processions. It observed that the number of participants would have to be determined according to the law-and-order situation existing at the time permission is sought.
The Court held that the petitioner’s concern regarding possible future restrictions was premature because the circumstances prevailing during a future procession could not be determined in advance. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the principle that religious freedom and public order must operate together. Religious groups can exercise their constitutional rights, including conducting processions, but authorities can regulate the manner in which those processions are conducted where restrictions are reasonably connected with public safety and law and order.
The decision also indicates that restrictions should not automatically be treated as permanent. The number of participants and other conditions can depend on the circumstances prevailing when permission for a particular procession is sought.
For authorities, the judgment highlights the importance of considering the actual law-and-order situation before granting permission. For citizens and religious organisations, it makes clear that constitutional protection does not create an unrestricted right to demand a particular route, crowd size or manner of conducting a procession.
Case Title: Bhadai Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors.
