Allahabad HC: No Fundamental Right to Use a Particular Road for Religious Processions

The Allahabad High Court on June 24, 2026 ruled that while Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to practise religion, it does not confer a fundamental right to use a particular road for religious processions. The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by residents of Hazratnagar Garhi in the Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh, who sought permission to take out a Muharram Tazia procession along a new route.

Facts of the Case: Sharif Ahmad v. State of UP

The petitioners, led by Sharif Ahmad, were residents of Hazratnagar Garhi in Sambhal district. They sought permission to carry out the Alam/Tazia procession during Muharram (scheduled for June 26-27, 2026) along a new route leading to the Karbala at Village Sirsi. The traditional route used from 1952 to 2022 had been disrupted after a railway crossing on that path was permanently closed following an accident. The Indian Railways subsequently constructed a wall at the crossing, making the old route physically impassable.

The petitioners wanted to use an alternative route through areas inhabited by members of other religious communities. The district administration opposed this new route, citing objections from residents along the proposed path and the risk of public disorder.

The Binding July 2023 Agreement

A critical factual element in the case was a written agreement dated July 28, 2023. The petitioners had previously entered into this agreement, which was pasted onto the festival register maintained by the district administration. The agreement settled an alternate arrangement for the procession route. The court found that the petitioners were bound by this agreement and could not unilaterally seek a different route without demonstrating a valid basis for departure from the agreed terms.

Court's Analysis of Article 25

The Bench drew a crucial distinction between the right to practise religion and the right to practise it in a particular manner or on a particular road. Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. However, this right is subject to public order, morality, and health, and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

The court held that while the petitioners had a right to perform their religious rites, they could not claim a fundamental right to use any specific public road for that purpose. The right to practise religion does not extend to insisting on a particular geographic route, especially when the proposed route passes through areas where it could create communal tension and disturb public order.

Public Order as a Legitimate State Concern

The administration's position was that the proposed new route had been opposed by members of other religious communities, and permitting the procession along that path could lead to breaches of public order. The court accepted this as a legitimate ground for refusing the requested route change. Maintaining public order is a well-established limitation on fundamental rights under the Constitution, and the state's responsibility to prevent communal disturbances takes precedence over individual preferences regarding the manner of religious practice.

This ruling is consistent with established Supreme Court jurisprudence on the limits of constitutional rights in India. The court's approach reinforces that freedom of religion, while fundamental, is not absolute and must be exercised within the boundaries set by public order considerations.

Legal Significance of the Ruling

This judgment has broader implications for how religious procession disputes are handled across India. It clarifies that the right to take out a procession does not automatically entitle the organisers to choose any route they prefer. District administrations retain the authority to regulate procession routes based on public order considerations, community objections, and prior agreements.

The ruling also highlights the importance of written agreements between community groups and district administrations regarding procession arrangements. Such agreements, once entered into voluntarily and recorded in official registers, can be enforced by courts against the parties who made them. For communities and religious organisations, this underscores the need for careful consideration before entering into any formal arrangement with administrative authorities.

Those facing workplace religious discrimination or related issues may also find it useful to understand how the POSH Act handles delayed complaints, as the Allahabad HC has been active in clarifying procedural rights in multiple contexts.

Related Reading

Delhi HC Quashes PMLA Case Against NewsClick: Court Finds ED Abused Powers Against Free Journalism

Allahabad HC: Delayed POSH Act Complaints Cannot Be Rejected Without Examining Reasons for Delay

Supreme Court Rules Long Gap Without Repeat Offence Can Justify Sentence Reduction

Key Takeaways

The Allahabad High Court held that Article 25 guarantees the right to practise religion but does not confer a right to use a particular road for religious processions.

The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar dismissed the PIL from Sambhal district residents (Sharif Ahmad v. State of UP).

The petitioners were bound by a written agreement dated July 28, 2023, recorded in the district festival register, which had settled an alternate procession arrangement.

Maintaining public order is a legitimate state responsibility that can restrict the manner in which religious practices are carried out in public spaces.

District administrations retain the authority to regulate religious procession routes based on public order considerations and community objections.