No Fundamental Right To Use Particular Road For Religious Rites: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea For Particular Muharram Procession Route

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar added that it is the civil and police administration that is responsible to earmark routes for processions involving a multitude of people.

The Court made the observation while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by certain residents of Sambhal district, seeking permission to take out the customary Alam/Tazia procession on the occasion of Muharram along an alternate route on the Sirsi-Bilari Main Road in the City.

It was their case that between 1952 and 2022, the traditional route for the Tazia procession and its subsequent burial on the tenth day of Muharram ran from Hazrat Nagar Garhi to the Railway Crossings leading to the Karbala situated in the village of Sirsi.

However, following the electrification of the Moradabad-Sambhal railway track, a major accident occurred in 2023 when an Alam came in contact with high-voltage overhead electrical lines, leaving four 'Alamdars' severely scorched and injured.

In view of this, for security and safety reasons, the Railways had permanently closed the traditional path by constructing walls on both sides. Therefore, the petitioners proposed a new route via the Sirsi-Bilari Main Road.

The petitioners argued that the State authorities were duty-bound to sanction their applications for permission to hold the procession on a new route that would enable them to reach Karbala.

Appearing for the State, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi submitted that following the tragic electrocution incident of 2023, both the Hindu and Muslim communities of the village and the district administration had mutually executed a written agreement concerning the usage of an alternate route, and it was binding on the parties.

The bench was apprised that the agreement stated the procession would proceed along its customary route up to the government tubewell, where it would stop and perform the necessary rites.

Thereafter, the Alam would be dismantled and its parts would be carried back by the members of the procession or whoever is authorised on their behalf.

As far as the petitioners' permission for the new route to reach the Karbala is concerned, the respondents submitted that the proposal constituted a "new tradition" that was strongly opposed by other religious communities and may lead to social friction, including breaches of law and order or public order.

In this backdrop, the bench emphasized the constitutional limits of religious freedoms under Article 25.

"The exercise of this right 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 Bench further distinguished between the core right to profess religion and the absolute insistence on a specific methodology or layout for public display.

"The exercise of a right to practice one's religion is one thing and to practice it in a particular way is different," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the earmarking of routes involving a multitude of people is an essential administrative function concerning public order, for which civil and police authorities bear sole responsibility.

It clarified that this was not a case of prohibition or a denial of the right to practice religious rites altogether, but merely the refusal to allow a specific public route.

The Court further held:

"There is absolutely no fundamental right 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. In case, in the opinion of the civil or the police administration or the Government, it would be objected to by members of other religious communities and lead to social frictions; may be, breaches of law and order or public order."

Furthermore, the bench stressed that the petitioners are fully bound by the terms of the local inter-community agreement, which was also recorded in the official festival register maintained by the administration.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it.

Case Title: Sharif Ahmad and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 333

Click Here To Read/Download Order