No Fundamental Right to Religious Procession on Particular Route: Bombay HC

Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a police communication that permitted a Kavad Yatra to be taken out only along an alternate route, rather than the route proposed by the organiser, holding that there is no fundamental right to practise religion by using a particular road.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas was hearing a petition filed by the organiser of Bharat Mata Sewa Sangathan, Nagpur, challenging the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No. 3, Nagpur City, as well as a report of the Senior Police Inspector, Police Station Tahsil, Nagpur City, concerning the Kavad Yatra.

As per the petitioner's case, the organisation had in the past conducted several religious programs peacefully, and had applied for permission to take out a procession of about 3.5 kilometres in which consecrated water drawn from Mahadeo Ghat would be carried in a Kanwar for performing Jalabhishek, the ritual bathing of the Shivling.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the permission was declined without hearing a single member of the organisation, without notice, and without disclosing any adverse material to the petitioner. It was argued that India, being a secular country, permits religious processions to be conducted through all roads without restriction, and that a procession cannot be denied merely because another religious group predominantly resides or does business along the route. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commr. of Police, Ahmedabad and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, as well as a Madras High Court ruling that had disapproved of denying permission on the ground that mosques existed along a proposed procession route.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there was, in fact, no refusal of the procession itself; the petitioner had merely been asked to take an alternate route in view of adverse police reports. It was pointed out that the proposed route passed close to several mosques and a dargah, that there was no fundamental right to use a particular road for religious rites, and that the police, in the interest of maintaining law and order, were entitled to suggest an alternate route. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia and an Allahabad High Court decision in Sharif Ahmad v. State of U.P., besides a Co-ordinate Bench ruling of the same High Court in Bharat Mukti Morcha v. State of Maharashtra.

On perusing the impugned communication, the Court found that it recorded specific antecedents of communal tension in the area, including a 2024 incident of assault during a procession near a mosque and communal riots that broke out in 2025 following the burning of a symbolic grave near a public statue. The communication also noted that the petitioner's proposed route passed close to eight mosques and a dargah, and that the petitioner had furnished no traffic management plan, no estimate of participants, and no details of volunteers or crowd-control arrangements.

The Court observed that this was not a case where the petitioner had been refused permission to take out the procession altogether, or where the right to practise religion had been prohibited; the petitioner had, in fact, been granted permission, subject only to a modification of the route. It held that, given the antecedents of law and order disturbances, the petitioner was duty-bound to furnish the police with the necessary details to satisfy them that all mandatory aspects had been addressed, which admittedly had not been done.

The Court further noted that the temple forming part of the proposed Kavad Yatra route stood on private property that neither belonged to any trust nor to the Government, and that its owner had lodged complaints with the police; the petitioner, it held, could not compel a private person to make his premises part of the procession.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia and the Allahabad High Court's decision in Sharif Ahmad, the Court reiterated that courts should not normally interfere with matters of law and order, which lie primarily within the domain of the administrative authorities, and that there is no fundamental right to practise one's religion by using a particular route, since the exercise of that right is subject to the larger interests of law and public order.

in the matter relating to the law and order, the Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the concerned administrative authorities. They are by and large the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities, within their special knowledge. 

Holding that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were either distinguishable or did not assist his case, the Court concluded that no illegality had been committed by the police authorities in suggesting an alternate route in view of the demonstrated antecedents of communal disturbance in the locality, and that there was no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule.

Case Title: Deepak S/o Devidas Nechwani vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 6151 of 2026