Right to Worship at Temple Protected Under Articles 25 and 26; State to Balance Faith and Public Order
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held that prohibiting entire communities from worshipping at their deity’s temple amounts to a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Deciding a dispute over Diwali celebrations at the Mahasu Devta Temple in Village Gaunkhar, the Court held that such religious practices may be regulated only on grounds of public order, morality, or health through reasonable and proportionate restrictions. It directed authorities to allow the villagers to perform rituals peacefully under supervision, with measures in place to maintain law and order.
The petitioners prayed for writs to enforce the SDM Chopal’s order dated 05.11.2020, implement a written agreement dated 12.11.2020 providing for village‑wise Diwali celebrations, prevent forcible entry by neighbouring villages into Gaunkhar during Diwali, and deploy adequate police personnel to maintain law and order. The prayers were framed as requests for mandamus to protect local residents and ensure separate celebrations.
The judgment records that festivals including Bishu, Budhi Diwali and Poornima had historically been celebrated in the Mahasu Devta Temple courtyard at Gaunkhar. Over time, Budhi Diwali ceased and “Nayi Diwali,” a three‑day festival, came to be observed, with processions, songs, dances, and the carrying of torches in the temple courtyard. Petitioners alleged that, in recent years, some visiting participants engaged in abusive conduct and disturbances, including incidents in 2019 and 2023, leading to complaints and an SDM inquiry. The SDM, by order dated 05.11.2020, restrained residents of Dhar Chandna from entering Gaunkhar for Diwali, and a meeting on 12.11.2020 in the presence of officials resulted in a written understanding that Diwali would be celebrated in respective villages.
In 2024, the Court had earlier directed adherence to the SDM’s order and the written understanding, with notices to be displayed. Subsequently, Review Petition was filed by Gram Panchayat Dhar Chandna, contending lack of notice. The Court recalled its earlier judgment dated 29.10.2024 on 01.09.2025, restored the matter, and heard parties on the core dispute. The petitioners pressed that the SDM’s restraint and the 12.11.2020 understanding should prevail to avoid breach of peace. Respondents invoked Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, asserting a fundamental right to worship at the temple and to manage religious affairs, contending that stray incidents could not justify a blanket ban on devotees entering the temple premises during Diwali.
The Court recorded that residents of Dhar Chandna and Bawat have long visited the Gaunkhar temple and that the festival had historically been celebrated in the temple premises. It stated that the issue, though presented as a request to implement prior administrative directions and a community understanding, implicated the “protection of Fundamental Rights” under Articles 25 and 26 and could not be treated as a simple matter.
Referring to constitutional provisions, the Court noted the guarantee of religious freedom subject to public order, morality and health. It quoted and discussed authorities explaining that restrictions imposed “in the interests of public order” must be reasonable and have a proximate nexus to public order.
The Court observed: “District administration, otherwise being responsible to maintain law and order, can impose restrictions, thereby calling upon devotees to not indulge in illegal activities and pay obeisance to their Devta ji in peaceful manner, but certainly any order passed thereby completely banning the entry of the devotees in the temple would amount to infraction of Articles 13, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court recorded: “This Court is of the view that in view of the fact that Diwali was being celebrated jointly by the villagers of concerned villages since long and it is only on account of some stray incidents of disruption of public order that matter has reached authorities and thereafter court, restraining villagers of one Village from entering another village and stopping them from worshipping their deity, would not solve any problem, rather, would complicate the issue, making situation worse.”
The judgment further stated: “This Court is of the definite view that ultimate decision with regard continuation of Diwali celebration in the courtyard of Mahasu Devta temple can only be taken by the residents of the area, after sitting together and order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate would come in the way of peaceful and permanent resolution of the dispute.”
In discussing constitutional doctrine, the Court extracted passages clarifying that while the State may regulate secular activities associated with religious practice, it cannot interfere with essential religious practices except where public order, health, or morality are compromised. The judgment cited and quoted decisions setting out that restrictions for public order must be reasonable and have a “proximate relationship to the achievement of public order,” not a remote or hypothetical connection.
The Court stated: “Though order dated 05.11.2020 passed by Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Chopal, shall not come in the way of residents of Gram Panchayats Dhar Chandna and Bawat for celebrating Diwali in the premises/courtyard of Mahasu Devta temple situate at Village Gaunkhar, but while doing so, they will not; come in large procession; carry any kind of weapon; will not use any abuse language; carry one torch (Mashaal) for one family, which shall be kept outside temple premises/court yard. Large congregation in the temple premises would be avoided.”
“No person under the influence of liquor or other intoxicants shall not permitted to enter temple premises including courtyard, any violation there shall invite penal and contempt proceedings. Residents of Gram Panchayats Dhar Chandna and Bawat would ensure that no nuisance is caused to the residents of Village Gaunkhar, while performing religious dance and performing songs.”
“Deputy Commissioner as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to ensure deployment of sufficient police force in Mahasu Temple, Village Gaunkhar during Diwali festivities starting on 20.10.2025, for three days to prevent any untoward incident. Police shall be free to take action against any miscreant, especially those under the influence of liquor or any other intoxicant.”
“Pradhans, Gram Panchayats Dhar Chandna and Bawat, to ensure honouring of undertaking given before this Court, to ensure that no nuisance is created by the residents of their Panchayats and they shall ensure that these orders are conveyed to all the residents, to ensure strict compliance thereof; failing which they shall also invite penal and contempt proceedings.”
The Court stated that the directions were issued solely to ensure that “no untoward incident takes place” during the ensuing Nayi Diwali celebration. It permitted community‑level dialogue after the festival, noting that elected representatives of the concerned villages “can sit together for the resolution of dispute, once for all,” and, if required, approach the Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms, with the Additional Advocate General directed to promptly convey the directions to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Shimla, with an authenticated copy supplied the same day.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood and Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore and Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State; Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Thakur, Mr. Tejsavi Dogra and Ms. Bhanvi Negi, Advocates, for respondent No. 7; Mr. Ashir Kaith and Mr. Ankit Kaloti, Advocates, for respondent No. 8.
Case Title: Padam Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:35445
Case Number: CWP No. 12099 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma
