Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Padam Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. traditional joint diwali celebrations disrupted by anti-social misconduct (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. interim orders, review, and case restoration proceedings (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. enforce sdm order to prevent public order breaches (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. religious rights under articles 25, 26 prevail (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. stray incidents insufficient for blanket religious bans (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. religious freedoms protected unless proximate public order threat (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. regulated celebrations balance rights and public order (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
Judgment :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:-
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to enforce the order dated 05.11.2020 issued by the SDM, Chopal and to implement the written agreement dated 12.11.2020 by taking all necessary measures to ensure that the Diwali festival is celebrated village-wise, as per the agreed terms;
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Respondents to prevent individuals n
Stray incidents do not justify blanket executive ban on religious festival celebrations in temple under Articles 25, 26; rights prevail subject to reasonable restrictions with proximate nexus to publ....
Point of Law : Section 31A of Act deals with formation of Temple Advisory Committees.
The fundamental right to freely practice religion under Article 25(1) is protected, and any prohibitory orders lacking natural justice are null and void.
Court directs police protection for customary religious ritual during festival based on prior recognition and apprehension of obstruction, distinguishing public order maintenance from civil rights ad....
Protection of cultural identity under PESA Act does not violate religious freedom, and reasonable restrictions may be imposed on movement and religious activities to maintain social order.
The impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and it infringed upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1), Articles 25 an....
The duty of the authorities to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the need for effective implementation of laws to prevent infringement of rights.
The court affirmed that access to public temples cannot be restricted based on caste or community, emphasizing the fundamental right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
