The Bombay High Court has observed that the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to practise one’s religion is subject to the larger interests of law and order, public order, and the needs of other sections of the population when the exercise of that right in a particular manner adversely affects such interests.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated August 1, 2026, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which refused permission for a Kavad Yatra along a specific route. The petitioner had sought permission for a procession of approximately 3.5 kilometres during which consecrated water drawn from Mahadeo Ghat was to be carried in a Kanwar for performing Jalabhishek.
The petitioner contended that permission was refused without notice or hearing and argued that every religious group has a fundamental right to take out a religious procession through any road, submitting that the presence of places of worship belonging to other religious groups could not be a ground to deny permission.
The State, in its response, submitted that permission to take out the procession had not been refused altogether but that only the particular route sought by the petitioner had not been permitted. The Court emphasized that the contention that permission to take out the Kavad Yatra had been refused was misconceived, noting that the petitioner had been permitted to take out the procession but not on the route suggested by him; instead, permission was granted on the route suggested by the police administration.
The Court observed that this was not a case where the right to practise religion or a particular part of it had been prohibited. It agreed with the various reasons cited by the authorities, including previous incidents on the same route resulting in law and order issues, and observed that there was no error on the part of the police in suggesting an alternate route.
The Court further noted that the temple, which is a part of the Kavad Yatra, is private property and does not belong to any trust or the government. It held that the police had received complaints from the owner of the said temple, and that the petitioner cannot compel any private person to make him a part of such private temple for the Kavad Yatra.
Clarifying the scope of the right under Article 25 in the peculiar facts of the case, the Court observed: ‘... the right guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 25, to practice one's religion is certainly subject to larger interest of law and order, public order and the needs of other sections of the population, that might be adversely affected, if the exercise of the right in a particular manner is insisted upon and permitted.’
The Court further observed that there is no right inhering in a person to take out a procession along a particular route. It stated: ‘If, upon assessment of the situation, physical and geographical, and opinions of members of other communities, the respondents have taken a decision that a new route, as proposed by the petitioners, cannot be permitted to take out the procession, then there is no right inhering in the petitioners to take out the procession along the particular route.’
The Court held that there was no illegality in not allowing the petitioner to take out the procession from the route suggested by him and in suggesting an alternate route. It therefore declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition in the matter titled Deepak S/o Devidas Nechwani v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 6151 of 2026].