In a pluralistic democracy like India, maintaining a balance between religious freedom and public order has always been an important constitutional question. The Constitution guarantees individuals the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion, but this freedom is not completely unrestricted. Public order, health, safety and law-and-order considerations can play a significant role in regulating religious activities.
The issue came into focus in a recent Patna High Court decision concerning a Mahaviri religious procession in Hathauda village of Siwan district. A single-judge bench headed by Justice Alok Kumar dismissed a petition seeking permission for at least 300 devotees to participate in the procession and to follow its traditional route. The decision highlighted the importance of considering public order and civic safety while regulating religious processions.
Is the Right to Religious Freedom Absolute?
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion. However, the provision itself makes this right subject to public order, morality and health.
Similarly, Article 19(1)(b) guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 19(3), however, allows reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of public order.
Therefore, religious freedom does not automatically create an unrestricted right to conduct a procession in any manner, along any route or with any number of participants.
The specific circumstances of an event can matter when authorities assess its potential impact on public safety and law and order.
What Was the Siwan Mahaviri Procession Case About?
The case concerned Akhara No. 1 in Hathauda village, Siwan. Bhadai Chaudhary approached the Patna High Court seeking permission for at least 300 people to participate in the traditional Mahaviri procession and for the procession to use its traditional route.
According to reports, the Akhara had historically received permission to conduct the procession with larger numbers of participants. Over the years, however, the permitted number was reduced substantially and the traditional route was also changed. The petitioner sought restoration of the earlier arrangement.
What Did the Bihar Government Argue?
The state government defended the restrictions primarily on law-and-order grounds.
According to the government’s submissions reported in the case, despite restrictions on the permitted number of participants, crowds of around 1,700 to 2,000 people had gathered during previous processions. Several cases were subsequently registered.
The government also referred to a 2024 incident in which a government vehicle was allegedly set on fire and police personnel were allegedly subjected to stone-pelting.
Thus, the dispute was not simply about whether a religious procession could take place. It also concerned how many people could participate, which route could be used and under what conditions the procession could be conducted.
What Was the High Court’s Main Approach?
The Patna High Court approached the issue by examining religious freedom alongside public order rather than treating the two as completely separate questions.
The court’s observations indicate that although religious processions may receive constitutional protection, every specific aspect of a procession—such as its route, manner of conduct and number of participants—does not automatically become an unrestricted fundamental right. Such aspects may be regulated depending on the prevailing circumstances and law-and-order situation.
The court also observed that the number of people permitted in a procession should be determined in light of the prevailing law-and-order situation at the relevant time. It therefore declined to issue an advance direction allowing 300 participants merely on the apprehension that a future permission might be limited to five people. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Why Are Religious Processions in Residential Areas Sensitive?
A religious procession passing through a residential area can affect people beyond those participating in the event.
Traffic movement, emergency services, local residents, public facilities and overall neighbourhood safety may all be affected.
This is why authorities have to consider more than religious tradition when granting permission. Public health, safety, peace and the local law-and-order situation can also become relevant factors.
Reports on the judgment specifically highlight the importance of public health, safety and tranquility while considering permission for religious processions, particularly in residential areas.
Balancing Articles 25 and 19
Two constitutional provisions are particularly relevant to understanding this case.
Article 25: Protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
Article 19(1)(b): Protects peaceful assembly without arms, while Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order.
This does not mean that the government can arbitrarily prohibit religious activities. Restrictions must have a lawful basis and should be connected to genuine public-order, health or safety considerations.
What About the ‘Essential Religious Practice’ Doctrine?
Indian courts have examined the question of whether a particular religious practice is essential to a religion while deciding the extent of constitutional protection available to it.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui case, among other judgments, has contributed to the broader jurisprudence concerning religious practices and the distinction between religious practice and the specific place or manner in which it is performed.
However, it would be too broad to claim that this Patna High Court decision declared every religious procession to be outside the scope of essential religious practice.
A more accurate interpretation is that the existence of a traditional religious procession does not automatically create an unrestricted fundamental right to use a particular route, involve a particular number of participants or conduct the event in a particular manner.
Does the Verdict Go Against Religious Freedom?
That would be an oversimplification.
The court did not abolish or deny religious freedom. Rather, the decision reinforces the constitutional principle that the exercise of religious rights can be regulated where public order, health and safety are genuinely involved.
The issue, therefore, is not simply religion versus the State, but the constitutional balancing of religious freedom and civic safety.
Wider Significance of the Verdict
The decision could become relevant in future disputes involving permissions for religious processions, particularly where authorities impose restrictions on routes, participant numbers or the manner of conducting an event.
At the same time, the judgment should not automatically be treated as a blanket prohibition on religious processions or as a universal rule applicable regardless of circumstances.
Each case may depend on its own facts, local conditions, law-and-order assessment and the legal basis for the restrictions imposed by the authorities.
Conclusion
The central significance of the Patna High Court’s Mahaviri procession decision lies not in restricting religion, but in examining the constitutional limits within which religious freedom operates.
Religious freedom is a fundamental constitutional right in India. At the same time, Article 25 itself recognises public order, morality and health as relevant constitutional limitations.
In the Siwan case, the High Court declined to grant the requested permission for a 300-person procession along the traditional route and indicated that the number of participants and conditions of a procession can be determined according to the prevailing law-and-order circumstances.
Therefore, the decision is best understood not simply as “religious freedom versus public order,” but as an important discussion about the constitutional balance between religious freedom and public order.