Bombay High Court Allows Event Featuring Sadhvi Pragya Thakur with Conditions: “People Are Educated and Wise to Understand Self-Imposed Limitations”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Bombay High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, permitted the conduct of the ‘Virat Hindu Sabha Sammelan’ on specified terms, setting aside the denial of permission issued by the Executive Magistrate. The Court recorded that permissions in such cases must balance fundamental rights with law and order imperatives, noting that “any person violating the law and order norms or the undertakings given should be proceeded against strictly in accordance with the procedure and the provisions laid down in law.” The Bench directed that the function may be held only between 7.00 am and 5.00 pm and ordered the organising committee to furnish an undertaking to the police. The law enforcement agencies were directed to earmark a specific route and ensure adequate security arrangements at the venue.
The petitioner claimed to represent the Sakal Hindu Samaj, an organisation described as having an objective of social integration among various castes and sections of Hindu society under the broader identity of believers in Sanatan Dharma. The petitioner sought permission from the Tehsildar, Malegaon, for organising a public event titled ‘Virat Hindu Sabha Sammelan’ on the occasion of Gudhi Padwa, scheduled for 30 March 2025 at Yashshree Compound, Satana Naka, Malegaon. The application, dated 17 February 2025, sought authorisation to hold the event between 6.00 pm and 10.00 pm and to erect flex boards, banners, and other displays promoting the event.
The scheduled event included a felicitation of a public figure and featured various speakers, including H.B.P. Sangram Bapu Bhandare, Milind Ekbote, Swami Bharatanand Saraswati Maharaj, and Jain Saint Nilesh Munee Maharaj. Among them was Sadhvi Pradnyasingh Thakur, who was proposed to be honoured with the “Hindu Veer Puraskar”.
On 25 March 2025, the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar, Malegaon, rejected the application, citing a report from the Police Inspector, Chhavani Police Station. The report indicated a likelihood of law and order issues due to the presence of certain speakers with alleged records of delivering provocative speeches. The refusal of permission was based on the assessment that the proposed congregation could incite tensions during a period coinciding with multiple religious festivals, including Ramzan Eid on 31 March 2025 and other events in April.
The police report marked as ‘X-1’ was submitted before the Court. Additionally, a compilation marked ‘X-2’ containing communications from the District Superintendent of Police, Nashik Rural, was also placed on record. The reports expressed concerns that the participation of individuals associated with prior offences or known for inflammatory statements could affect communal harmony. It was noted that Sadhvi Pradnyasingh Thakur was an accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts. The possibility of heightened sensitivities due to ongoing regional developments, including matters related to the Aurangzeb burial site and tensions in Nagpur, was cited.
The petitioner challenged the denial of permission before the High Court, contending that the event would be conducted peacefully and that no inflammatory or provocative statements would be made by any speaker. It was submitted that the gathering was intended to celebrate a cultural festival and promote unity. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the refusal to grant permission amounted to a restriction on fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India.
The State, represented by the Government Pleader, maintained its objection and placed reliance on the intelligence reports and prior conduct of the speakers. The State argued that the possibility of breach of peace and disruption of communal harmony could not be ignored, particularly in light of the timing and location of the proposed gathering. However, the Government Pleader submitted that, in the event the Court were inclined to allow the gathering, certain modalities could be adopted to ensure peaceful conduct.
The Division Bench noted that India had celebrated 78 years of independence and 75 years since the enactment of its Constitution. The Court observed that the country had made considerable progress in technological, diplomatic, and economic spheres and that its citizens must exhibit a responsible exercise of rights consistent with national development.
The Court recorded: “Wisdom comes from understanding and harmony arises when we embrace that understanding with kindness and compassion. ‘Live and let live’ should be the hallmark of our character.” In the context of fundamental freedoms, the Court referred to precedent set in Vinoj v. Union of India, observing that authorities must process applications for public events in accordance with law and provide written reasons when denying such permissions. The Court also referred to the Madurai Bench judgment in L. Cheziyan @ Sakthivel v. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy, where organisers were directed to submit written undertakings, and speakers were required to ensure that expressions made during public events did not contravene restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
It was noted in the present case that the petitioner had undertaken that none of the speakers would deliver inflammatory speeches or make statements that could provoke religious tension. In view of the submissions from the State and the undertaking given, the Court recorded: “We deem it advisable and appropriate... that the function/congregation/sammelan shall be organised in between 7.00 am to 5.00 pm.”
The Court further recorded: “We have every reason to believe that the population of this country is sufficiently educated and wise to understand the self-imposed limitations on what to speak and what not to.”
In light of the submissions, factual materials placed on record, and the assurances of both parties, the Court considered that the function could be permitted with procedural safeguards and subject to cooperation from the organisers and oversight by law enforcement agencies.
The Court allowed the writ petition in part and directed that the order dated 25 March 2025, marked ‘X-1’, rejecting permission for the event, be quashed and set aside. The Court permitted the organisers to conduct the Virat Hindu Sabha Sammelan only between 7.00 am and 5.00 pm on 30 March 2025.
It was further directed that the Managing Committee of the organisers submit a written undertaking to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Malegaon, District Nashik, by 6.00 pm on 29 March 2025. The undertaking shall bind both the organising body and the speakers, who would be held equally accountable. The undertaking must confirm that the expressions during the event shall not offend the religious sentiments of any other community. The Court specified: “The Managing Committee of the organiser would be bound by the assurance given to the Court and the undertaking of expressing their thoughts and views without hurting any person who professes any other religion.”
The law enforcement authorities were instructed to designate a specific route to the venue, avoiding congested areas, and maintain appropriate police presence. The Court stated: “Adequate police bandobast as may be deemed fit and proper by the law enforcing agencies, would be maintained. Any person violating the law and order norms or the undertakings given, should be proceeded against strictly in accordance with the procedure and the provisions laid down in law.”
The Court stated that any decision regarding additional charges for special police deployment would be left to the discretion of the police department. Finally, it was directed that the parties were to act in accordance with the order immediately, without waiting for the judgment to be uploaded on the official website.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhash Jha, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Jha, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Saxena, Advocate; Mr. Sumeet Upadhaya, Advocate; Ms. Dhriseka Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Neha Bhide, Government Pleader; Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. A.C. Bhadang, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Rahul Nana Bachhav v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14502-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
[Read/Download order]
