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
| 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
State of Punjab v. Dalber Singh
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.