Back
No Absolute Right To Specific Procession Routes:
The has delivered a definitive ruling clarifying the scope of under , stating that the right to practice religion does not extend to an absolute right to utilize specific public roads for religious processions. The bench, comprising Hon’ble J.J. Munir and Hon’ble Arun Kumar, dismissed a (PIL) filed by Sharif Ahmad and others, which sought permission for an alternative route for a Muharram Tazia procession.
The Backdrop: Safety and Tradition The dispute stemmed from changes to a long-standing procession route in Sambhal. Historically, the Alam/Tazia procession from Hazrat Nagar Garhi to the Carbala in Village Sirsi passed over a railway crossing. However, following the electrification of the railway track, a tragic incident occurred when a pole came into contact with high-voltage overhead lines, causing severe injuries to participants. To prevent further accidents, the constructed walls, permanently closing the traditional route.
The petitioners argued that the proposed alternative through the Sirsi-Bilari Road was necessary for the community to perform their annual rites. They asserted that the state authorities were obligated to sanction this route.
Divergent Perspectives The state counsel, representing the , highlighted a critical piece of evidence: a registered agreement dating back to . This inter-community agreement, kept in the official festival register, established a fixed route and procedure for the procession to ensure peaceful observance. According to this arrangement, the procession reaches a government tubewell where essential rites are performed, and the Alam is subsequently dismantled and carried by hand.
The administration further contended that the petitioners' proposed route on the Sirsi-Bilari Main Road was met with staunch opposition from other religious communities. They argued that permitting a "new tradition" of a procession route through a sensitive area would jeopardize and invite social friction.
The Court’s Legal Analysis The Court underscored that while the provides the , this liberty is not unfettered. Writing for the bench, J.J. Munir, J., articulated that the exercise of religious rights is subject to the broader considerations of public order and the rights of other populations.
The judgment clearly distinguished between the to practice a belief and the administrative logistics of manifesting that belief in public spaces. The Court observed that the task of designating routes for large-scale processions rests squarely with the civil and police administrations, who must balance cultural sentiments with ground-level safety and security concerns.
Key Observations The High Court’s ruling included several pivotal observations:
-
"The exercise of a right to practice one's religion is one thing and to practice it in a particular way is different."
-
"There is absolutely no to the practice of one's religion, that may entitle them or the community to use a particular road for the performance of religious rites."
-
"The earmarking of routes to take out processions, that involve a multitude of people, is a matter that essentially relates to ."
Final Verdict: The Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish a valid claim to override existing agreements or administrative decisions. By dismissing the petition, the reaffirmed that individual or community preferences for public routes cannot supersede the state’s mandate to maintain public order and community harmony. The decision reinforces that logistical arrangements involving religious processions remain a matter of and mutual community consensus, particularly when public safety or communal harmony is at stake.
