Back
Upholds Cancellation of Convention Over Viral Communally Provocative Video Clip
Cuttack, – The has upheld the decision of the district administration to cancel the permission granted to the ) and the ) to hold their joint national convention at the Lower Baliyatra Ground in December 2025. The cancellation was prompted by the circulation of a video clip deemed communally provocative, which authorities feared could disturb peace in the communally sensitive city of Cuttack. However, the court left the door open for the organizations to apply afresh for a convention in December 2026, in accordance with applicable guidelines.
When a Video Clip Derailed a Convention
The and had applied to hold their 42nd and 15th national conventions, respectively, from , at the Lower Baliyatra Ground. The organizations received provisional permissions from the Office of the Collector, Cuttack () and a from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack (). Relying on these provisional approvals, the petitioners paid statutory fees to various government authorities and began setting up infrastructure for the event.
On , just days before the scheduled convention, the Deputy Commissioner of Police canceled the . The order cited a viral video clip circulating on social media, uploaded by a person named Chand Mohammed on behalf of the petitioners' organizations, which contained objectionable and divisive statements. The Collector, Cuttack, also issued a letter the same day denying final permission. The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court, arguing that the cancellation was arbitrary and without valid reason, and sought permission to hold the convention in December 2026 to avoid financial losses from fees already paid.
"Permission" or ""?
A key point of contention was the nature of the permissions granted. The petitioners maintained that they had received full permission from the authorities. However, the State countered that the permissions were merely provisional, subject to final approval by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, who had the ultimate authority. The High Court examined the documents and agreed with the State, noting that Annexure-2 (Collector's letter) clearly stated that permission was provisional subject to submission of No Objection Certificates from various departments. The DCP's order under Annexure-6 was itself the , not a final grant of permission.
Balancing the Right to Assemble with
The court recognized the to peacefully assemble and discuss issues. Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray, presiding as a , observed:
"To congregate to have discussion on any issue, at national level, by any organization peacefully without affecting the right of other citizens or without disturbing the normal is of course a right not to be objected by the authority."
Citing the judgments in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973) and Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), the court reiterated that while the right to assemble is treasured under , it can be subject to in the interest of . The Court noted that in Amit Sahni , the had emphasized that the right to protest must be exercised in designated places and cannot cause grave inconvenience to others.
Why the Cancellation Was Upheld
The court closely examined the grounds for cancellation—the viral video clip. The petitioners did not disown the video, and the authorities, having assessed its potential to provoke communal tension in Cuttack, decided to cancel the permission. The High Court found no fault with this administrative decision.
"It is true that the administrative authorities have every right to take appropriate decision in their administrative capacity in order to maintain public peace in the locality and to maintain ."
Justice Routray further held:
"Therefore, nothing can be faulted on the part of the administrative authorities when they have perceived any danger of , particularly the communal sensation among different communities of the city. In this regard, the Court would not be right in interfering with the decision of the administrative authority."
Thus, the of cancellation (Annexure-9 and Annexure-12) were upheld.
A Second Chance for December 2026
Despite affirming the cancellation, the court acknowledged the petitioners' financial losses and their fresh application to hold the convention from . The court noted that the petitioners had submitted their application (Annexure-13) on , assuring adequate arrangements for law and order, cleanliness, traffic management, fire safety, and public safety.
The State raised an objection that the application did not follow the issued on (Annexure-B/5), which prescribes a specific form for seeking permission at the Baliyatra Ground. The court directed that if the petitioners apply in accordance with the SOP, the authorities shall consider the application in accordance with law. Additionally, the fees already deposited under Annexure-4 series may be adjusted for the new event.
The Final Order
Justice B.P. Routray disposed of the , confirming the cancellation orders while permitting the petitioners to apply afresh for their 2026 convention. The court emphasized that the decision should be based on the prevailing guidelines and the authorities' assessment of .
This judgment reaffirms the delicate balance between fundamental rights and the State's duty to maintain , especially in communally sensitive areas. It also highlights the importance of procedural compliance for organizers of large public gatherings.
(Case: W.P.(C) No. 37240 of 2025)
