SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Padam Sharma & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.12099 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ankush Dass Sood & Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore & Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Thakur, Mr. Tejsavi Dogra and Ms. Bhanvi Negi, Advocates, Mr. Ashir Kaith and Mr. Ankit Kaloti, Advocates, Mr. Aman Kumar, SDM Kupvi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and ASI/SHO Sat Prakash, PS Kupvi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, present in person

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 public order.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 13, 25, 26 - Freedom of religion - Right to profess, practice, propagate religion and manage religious affairs subject to public order, morality, health - Celebration of festivals in temple courtyard since times immemorial by residents of neighboring areas - Stray incidents of anti-social behavior under influence of liquor and disturbances in 2019 and 2023 cannot justify blanket restraint or executive order prohibiting entry to temple premises on festival eve - Such restraint lacks proximate nexus to public order and violative of fundamental rights - State may regulate with reasonable restrictions, deploy police, prohibit weapons, intoxicants, large processions - Directions issued allowing regulated celebrations. (Paras 15, 21-30, 33)

(B) Public Order - Restrictions under Articles 25, 26 must have direct, proximate relation to object; remote or hypothetical disturbances insufficient for permanent ban on religious practices. (Paras 26-28)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners prayed for enforcement of executive order and written agreement restraining neighboring villagers from entering their village for festival celebrations in temple courtyard due to past disturbances, abusive language, manhandling and fear of breach of peace. Respondents claimed ancient custom and fundamental right to worship deity. Initial court order enforced restraint but recalled on review; conditional permissions granted during pendency.

Findings of Court:
Executive order dated 05.11.2020 and agreement not enforced as blanket bans; festivals permitted in temple courtyard with conditions: no large processions, weapons, intoxicants, abuse; limited torches, no nuisance, police deployment; post-festival meeting by elected representatives for permanent resolution.

Issues: Whether stray disturbances justify permanent restraint on religious festival celebrations in temple; whether executive order banning entry infringes fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26; balance between religious freedom and public order.

Ratio Decidendi: Fundamental rights to religious practice and management cannot be abrogated by executive fiat based on isolated incidents; restrictions valid only if proximately related to public order - not remote or problematical; devotees entitled to worship subject to regulated conduct ensuring harmony.

Result: Petition disposed with directions for conditional festival celebrations and future resolution.

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 neighboring villages from forcibly entering Village Gaunkhar during the Diwali celebrations, thereby averting any potential breach of peace and public order;

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Respondents to take all necessary preventive measures, including but not limited to, deploying adequate police personnel in Village Gaunkhar during the Diwali Festival to ensure the maintenance of law and order and the safety of the petitioners and other villagers of Ghaunkhar; and

iv. Grant just and proper reliefs in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the cost of the petitioner may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”

2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that since times immemorial, the festivals of Bishu, Budhi Diwali and Poornima, having profound significance in the cultural tapestry of the area, were being celebrated in the courtyard of Mahasu Devta temple, situated in Gram Panchayat Gaunkhar, symbolizing unity and communal harmony. However, few years back festival of Budhi Diwali, which is usually celebrated after 20 days of Diwali, was discontinued and residents of Gram Panchayats Dhar Chandna and Bawat started celebrating ‘Nayi Diwali’, a three-day festival. The celebrations on the eve of ‘Nayi Diwali’ also take place in the courtyard of Mahasu Devta Temple, situate in Village Gaunkhar, where residents gather to engage in spirited dance and melodious songs in local language.

3. However, with the passage of time, this holy function has become a source of discord for the residents of Village Gaunkhar. Petitioners allege that some residents of Gram Panchayats Dhar Chandna and Bawat, who used to visit the Mahasu Devta Temple, situate in Village Gaunkhar to pay their obeisance, started behaving irresponsibly and engaging in illegal activities. This unwanted intrusion of anti-social elements in the village of petitioners allegedly led to frequent disturbances and instilled a constant fear of violent altercations during Diwali in Village Gaunkhar. Though at first instance, petitioners along with other residents of Village Gaunkhar made efforts at local/ administrative level to stop joint Diwali celebrations in their village, but since no heed was paid by the authorities as well as Gram Panchayats concerned to their request, petitioner No.2, Madan Mohan Sharma, lodged a formal online complaint (complaint No.111166) via “Chief Minister Seva Sankalp” portal, articulating the distressing experiences endured by the villagers. In the c




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top