The High Court holds that blanket administrative orders restraining persons from attending religious celebrations on ‘public order’ grounds violate fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 unless a real, proximate threat is shown; historic and customary worship cannot be abrogated due to remote or isolated incidents. The judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent and clarifies that State orders inconsistent with fundamental rights are void. Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other forums.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/12099/2024 of PADAM SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010544682024 |
| Date of Registration | 26-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within territorial jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights (Articles 13, 25, 26); Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that blanket administrative orders (such as those passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate restraining entry for festival celebrations) are not sustainable when they directly infringe on fundamental rights to profess, practice, and manage religious affairs under Articles 25 and 26. Such rights may be restricted only where there is a real and proximate threat to public order, not on the basis of isolated incidents or the acts of a few individuals. Orders not meeting this standard are void under Article 13. The right to attend customary religious festivals at traditional venues cannot be abrogated due to hypothetical or distant fears. The police and civil administration are empowered (and directed) to enforce peace, not to curtail essential religious freedoms. Historic usage of religious places for festivals is protected unless there is clear, demonstrable, ongoing danger to public order. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The dispute arose due to incidents during Diwali celebrations at Mahasu Devta temple, Village Gaunkhar. Administrative order of SDM (05.11.2020) barred residents of nearby Gram Panchayats (Dhar Chandna, Bawat) from entering or celebrating at the temple, citing incidents from 2019 and 2023. Despite historic joint celebrations, fear of violence led to restraint orders and written compromises, but violations persisted. After a previously unnotified order was recalled, the dispute was re-adjudicated. The petitioners sought enforcement of the earlier restraint, while the respondents invoked Articles 25-26, claiming fundamental rights to worship at the temple. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, authorities, and administrative bodies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | Disapplies the SDM, Chopal order dated 05.11.2020 prohibiting Diwali celebrations for certain Panchayats in the temple precincts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Blanket or permanent administrative bans on religious festival attendance, based on isolated incidents, are unconstitutional unless a real, proximate threat to public order exists.
- Any executive order, custom, or agreement that infringes fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 is void under Article 13.
- The right to celebrate and practice essential religious rituals, especially those with historic/cultural significance, is protected and cannot be extinguished by administrative order, save for demonstrable threats.
- Preventive and regulatory safeguards (e.g., police deployment), not outright prohibitions, are the constitutionally permissible approach to balance order with religious freedom.
- Judicial and administrative authorities must narrowly tailor restrictions and provide evidence-based justifications when invoking the “public order” exception.
- The judgment clarifies the difference between managing administrative aspects of public order and infringing on religious autonomy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed Articles 13, 25, and 26, reading them to ensure that orders, customs, or agreements inconsistent with the guaranteed rights are void (Art. 13).
- Recognizing the historic and customary practice of celebrating Diwali and other festivals at Mahasu Devta temple by villagers from surrounding Panchayats, the Court found such religious practice to be essential and protected.
- The restriction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, based on incidents in 2019 and 2023 involving a limited number of individuals, was held to be an excessive and impermissible use of administrative power.
- Citing Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, the Court emphasized the “proximate connection” test: restrictions must be justified by a real and immediate risk to public order, not remote or speculative fears.
- The Court applied Supreme Court authority (Dalber Singh; CPDR v. State of West Bengal; Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar), holding that the essential management of religious affairs cannot be completely removed by legislation or executive action, save for clear cases of threat to public order, morality, or health.
- Preventive measures (police, conditions on processions, prohibition on intoxicants or weapons) are authorized, but wholesale denial of religious access is not.
- The Court issued practical, balanced directions: permitted celebrations with conditions (limited processions, avoidance of abusive conduct, police presence), and called for community discussions for long-term resolution.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Administrative order (SDM’s 05.11.2020) should be enforced to protect local residents and prevent breach of peace.
- Written agreement between Panchayats agrees to celebrate Diwali separately; joint celebrations now cause unrest.
- Incidents in 2019 and 2023 (including assault, ruckus, alleged intoxication, fire risk) justify continuing the ban.
- Not opposed to other Panchayats visiting the temple for worship at other times, but mass festival entry should be barred during Diwali as it risks fresh conflict.
Respondents (Gram Panchayats Dhar Chandna & Bawat)
- Diwali festival has been customarily and historically celebrated at Mahasu Devta temple by all Panchayats; essential religious practice cannot be abrogated by administrative order.
- Invoked fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26: right to profess, practice, and manage religious affairs, including worship at customary venues.
- SDM order is an overreach; incidents cited are isolated and involve few individuals for whom separate legal action can be taken.
- Agreement dated 12.11.2020 cannot permanently bind all villagers and cannot take precedence over fundamental rights.
- Restrictions may be imposed for public order (e.g. no weapons, no intoxication), but total ban is unconstitutional.
Factual Background
A long-standing tradition exists for celebrating Diwali and related festivals at the Mahasu Devta temple in Gaunkhar by residents of several villages. Recent years saw disruptions and complaints of disorderly conduct (2019 and 2023) involving a minority of individuals. In response, the SDM issued an order in 2020 barring residents of neighboring Panchayats from celebrating at the temple, and a compromise was made to celebrate separately. However, the order was breached, leading to renewed disputes and police complaints. After a prior unnotified order was recalled, the High Court was called upon to decide whether the SDM ban could constitutionally persist in light of fundamental rights claims.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 13: Declares void any law/order/custom/usage inconsistent with Part III fundamental rights. Applied to the SDM’s prohibitory order.
- Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice/profess/propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Court interpreted this expansively but tied restrictions to the “proximate connection” test (Lohia).
- Article 26: Grants every religious denomination right to manage its religious affairs, subject to the same limitations.
- The Court cited Supreme Court authorities to emphasize that Acts and executive orders must not unduly restrict essential religious practices and that only demonstrably necessary, temporally bounded restrictions are permissible.
- The Court also noted the State’s right and duty to maintain public order, but insisted that this cannot lead to permanent or general deprivation of religious rights.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was recorded in this single-judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court required Pradhans to file undertakings regarding maintenance of order by their communities, made their accountability explicit, and clarified that breaches may lead to contempt/penal consequences.
- Directions were issued for immediate deployment of sufficient police force and public notification of court orders in affected villages before Diwali.
- Invited further community negotiation and authorized future recourse to the Court, fostering local self-resolution under continued judicial supervision.
- The earlier order was recalled upon complaint of non-hearing of certain parties; matter fully reheard and disposed of on merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on Articles 13, 25, and 26 as well as “proximate connection” for public order restrictions reaffirmed.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Directions issued specifically for the Diwali period starting 20.10.2025, with immediate effect.