Madras High Court Denies Permission for Religious Procession Citing Public Harmony Concerns

Madras High Court Refuses Permission for 'Vel' Procession, Emphasizing Public Harmony

Chennai, Tamil Nadu – The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by S. Yuvaraj , Deputy District President of Bharath Hindu Munnani, seeking permission to conduct a religious procession with a 'Vel' (divine spear) in Chennai on February 18, 2025. Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan presided over the case (W.P.No.4732 of 2025), ruling against granting permission to the procession, citing concerns over public order and religious harmony.

Case Overview: Seeking Procession to Condemn Religious Actions

The petitioner, S. Yuvaraj , sought permission from the Commissioner of Police and another respondent to hold a procession from Egambarashwarar Temple to Sri Muthu Kumarasami Kovil Devasthanam in Chennai. The procession was intended to condemn actions by a group of Islamic people claiming ownership of the Madurai Thiruparankundram mountain and protesting against animal sacrifice at the Kandhuri festival, issues perceived by the petitioner as violations of Hindu religious freedom.

Arguments Presented: Petitioner's Right to Procession vs. State's Concern for Public Order

The petitioner's counsel argued that a representation was submitted to the respondents on January 29, 2025, seeking permission for the procession, but no order had been passed. The counsel emphasized the petitioner's right to religious expression and the significance of the Thiruparankundram Murugan temple.

Representing the respondents, the State Public Prosecutor, Mr. Hasan Muhamed Jinnah, highlighted that the petitioner's representation was linked to condemning Muslim religious practices related to the Thiruparankundram hill. The court noted the sensitive history of disputes concerning the Thiruparankundram hill, referencing a Privy Council decision that settled ownership, granting the Devasthanam ownership of most of the hill except for specific Muslim -owned areas.

The court was informed about prior incidents in Madurai where demonstrations related to Thiruparankundram led to the registration of FIRs against members of Hindu Munnani for allegedly promoting enmity between religious groups and provoking public disorder. The respondents argued that allowing a procession, particularly with a symbolic 'Vel', in the commercially busy streets of Chennai, could incite communal disharmony, especially given the prior tensions and settled resolutions regarding Thiruparankundram .

Court's Reasoning: Prioritizing Public Peace and Harmony

Justice Ilanthiraiyan emphasized the volatile situation arising from the Thiruparankundram issue, noting that resolutions had been reached between religious groups under the auspices of revenue authorities. The court observed that permitting the procession could reignite tensions and disturb the prevailing communal harmony.

The judgment highlighted excerpts detailing previous demonstrations in Madurai by the same group which led to cases being registered for provoking riots and promoting religious enmity. The court noted the police's concern that the proposed procession route in Chennai was through a densely populated commercial area with narrow streets, schools, and diverse religious communities conducting business, making it highly sensitive to potential disruptions.

Pivotal Excerpt : "If a particular religion is allowed to conduct a procession that too by carrying the “Divine Spear” (Vel) and singing of their devotional songs, it would affect communal harmony prevalent in that area. Though the constitution enshrines Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India , it cannot be misused by the protesters by a particular religion people by endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of our Country."

Final Decision and Implications: Writ Petition Dismissed, Right to Worship Affirmed

Ultimately, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, denying permission for the procession. The court underscored the importance of maintaining public peace and harmony, especially in areas with diverse religious and commercial activities. While denying the procession, the court affirmed the petitioner's and other devotees' right to worship at the Sri Muthu Kumarasami Kovil Devasthanam, stating that no one could restrain their right to worship.

The decision reflects the court's cautious approach to balancing religious freedom with the imperative need to maintain public order and prevent communal tensions, particularly in sensitive urban environments.