No Right to Take Any Particular Route for Religious Procession Under Article 25

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas, in Deepak S/o Devidas Nechwani v. State of Maharashtra (2026), dismissed a writ petition challenging the police's refusal to permit a Kavad Yatra along a specific route, holding that Article 25 does not confer a right to practise religion in any particular manner or along any particular route, and that such exercise remains subject to law and order considerations. 

What was the Background of Deepak S/o Devidas Nechwani v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner sought permission for a Kavad Yatra, a procession of about 3.5 km, during which consecrated water drawn from Mahadeo Ghat was to be carried in a Kanwar for performing Jalabhishek. 
• By order dated August 1, 2026, the Deputy Commissioner of Police refused permission for the procession along the route proposed by the petitioner. 
• The petitioner challenged this order, contending that it had been passed without notice or hearing, and argued that every religious group has a fundamental right to take out a religious procession through any road, and that the presence of places of worship belonging to other religious groups could not be a ground to deny permission. 
• The State submitted that permission for the procession had not been refused altogether; only the specific route sought by the petitioner had not been permitted, and an alternate route had been suggested instead. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Nature of the Right Under Article 25: 
  The Court held that the right to practise one's religion is subject to the larger interest of law and order, public order, and the needs of other sections of the population where these are adversely affected by the exercise of the right in a particular manner, and clarified that the exercise of the right to practise religion is distinct from the right to practise it in a particular way. 
• On the Alleged Denial of Permission: 
  The Court found the contention that permission had been refused to be misconceived, since the petitioner had in fact been permitted to take out the procession, only not along the route he had proposed, and instead along the alternate route suggested by the police administration. 
• On the Justification for the Alternate Route: 
  The Court agreed with the reasons furnished by the police, including previous law and order incidents on the same route, and held that there was no error in the police suggesting an alternate route. 
• On the Private Nature of the Temple Involved: 
  The Court noted that the temple forming part of the Kavad Yatra was private property, not belonging to any trust or the government, and that the police had received complaints from its owner. It held that the petitioner could not compel a private person to make him part of activities on private temple property. 
• On the Absence of a Right to a Particular Route: 
  The Court held that where the authorities, upon assessing the physical and geographical situation and the views of other communities, decide that a particular proposed route cannot be permitted, there is no right inhering in the petitioner to insist on that route. 
• The Court accordingly found no illegality in the police declining the petitioner's proposed route and suggesting an alternate one, declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition. 

What is Article 25 of the Constitution of India? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Article 25 guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. 
• This right is not absolute and is expressly made subject to public order, morality, health, and the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. 

Key Components: 

• Freedom of Conscience: Every person is free to hold religious or non-religious beliefs according to their own conscience. 
• Right to Profess, Practise, and Propagate: Extends to the outward expression of belief through worship, rituals, and observances, but not to any particular manner or mode of such expression. 
• Subject to Public Order: The State may regulate or restrict the manner of exercising this right, including processions and their routes, where necessary to preserve law and order or public order. 
• No Absolute Right to Manner of Exercise: The right to practise religion does not translate into an unqualified right to do so in a specific way, such as along a specific route or at a specific private location, particularly where such exercise conflicts with the rights or interests of others.