Sharif Ahmad & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2026

The petitioners, residents of Sambhal district, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permission to conduct the customary Alam/Tazia procession during Muharram through an alternate route.

From 1952 to 2022, the procession traditionally passed through a railway crossing leading to the Karbala at Sirsi village.

In 2023, after electrification of the railway line, an Alam came into contact with overhead high-voltage electric wires, causing severe injuries to four participants.

Following the accident, the Railways permanently closed the traditional route by constructing walls on both sides.

The petitioners requested permission to use the Sirsi-Bilari Main Road as a new route to reach the Karbala.

The State opposed the request, relying upon a written agreement entered into between representatives of both Hindu and Muslim communities and the district administration after the 2023 incident.

Under the agreement, the procession would proceed only up to the government tubewell, where the required religious rites would be performed after dismantling the Alam.

The State contended that allowing the proposed alternate route would introduce a new tradition and could lead to communal tension and disturbances of public order.

The petitioners challenged the refusal, asserting that the authorities were duty-bound to permit the alternate route for performance of their religious rites.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation.

The Bench observed that the exercise of religious freedom is subject to public order, law and order, and the rights of other sections of society.

The Court distinguished between the right to practice religion and the insistence upon practicing it through a particular route or in a particular manner.

It held that determining and regulating procession routes is an administrative function entrusted to the civil and police authorities.

The Court accepted the State's contention that permitting the proposed alternate route could create communal friction and disturb public order.

It observed that there was no prohibition on the petitioners performing their religious rites; only the requested route had been declined.

The Court further held that the petitioners were bound by the mutually agreed arrangement recorded between both communities and the district administration after the 2023 accident.

Finding no violation of any fundamental right, the Court dismissed the petition.

The judgment reinforces that Article 25 protects religious freedom but not every preferred mode or location of its exercise.

The Court emphasized that fundamental rights must be balanced with public safety and maintenance of public order.

By distinguishing religious practice from the insistence on a particular route, the Court clarified the scope of constitutional protection under Article 25.

The ruling recognizes the statutory and administrative responsibility of the police and civil authorities in planning and regulating public processions involving large gatherings.

The decision highlights that courts ordinarily defer to administrative assessments regarding law-and-order concerns unless shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.

The judgment also gives significance to consensus-based arrangements between different communities, particularly where such arrangements promote communal harmony.

The ruling will serve as an important precedent for disputes involving regulation of religious processions, emphasizing that public roads cannot be claimed as a matter of fundamental right for religious observances.

The decision balances individual religious liberties with the State's constitutional obligation to preserve peace, safety, and social harmony.