Bombay High Court: Declines Urgent Relief in Mithila Chhath Puja Sangh v State Maharashtra

• The Bombay High Court refused urgent permission for the Mithila Chhath Puja Sangh to hold Chhath Puja rituals at Girgaum Chowpatty.
• The organization sought to erect a stage and make arrangements for the event on November 15 and 16.
• The court cited that Article 25 of the Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, is subject to public order, morality, and health.
• This decision followed a rejection letter from the police, noting a high-powered committee oversees Chowpatty activities.

By reaffirming that religious freedom under Article 25 is explicitly constrained by considerations of public order, morality, and health, the court provides a clear precedent for authorities to regulate or deny permission for such gatherings.

The Bombay High Court recently declined to grant urgent interim relief to the Mithila Chhath Puja Sangh, which had sought permission to conduct Chhath Puja rituals at Girgaum Chowpatty in South Mumbai. The organization intended to erect a stage and make necessary arrangements for the event between 3 pm on November 15 and 8 am on November 16. This decision by a vacation bench, comprising Justice Advait M Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, came after the Sangh approached the court following a rejection letter issued by the concerned police station on September 17.

The police communication, which prompted the legal challenge, indicated that a high-powered committee is responsible for overseeing activities at Girgaum Chowpatty, a directive established by previous High Court orders. The Sangh's petition, titled Mithila Chhath Puja Sangh v. State of Maharashtra, aimed to secure the necessary approvals for the religious observance, highlighting the importance of the site for the community. However, the court found insufficient grounds to intervene urgently.

In its ruling, the Bombay High Court underscored that while Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience, and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, this fundamental right is not absolute. The vacation bench, led by Justices Advait M Sethna and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, explicitly stated that these freedoms are subject to crucial limitations concerning public order, morality, and health. This judicial interpretation clarifies the scope of religious liberty within the Indian legal framework.

The court emphasized that Article 25 contains inherent "checks and balances" that must be observed. This means that even deeply held religious practices, such as the Chhath Puja, must conform to broader societal interests and regulatory requirements designed to maintain public safety and well-being. The judges observed that the constitutional provision itself outlines these restrictions, ensuring that religious practices do not impinge upon essential governmental functions or public welfare. This reinforces the principle that religious freedom, while fundamental, operates within a structured legal environment in India.

The Bombay High Court's decision regarding the Chhath Puja at Girgaum Chowpatty carries significant implications for organizers of public religious events across India. By reaffirming that religious freedom under Article 25 is explicitly constrained by considerations of public order, morality, and health, the court provides a clear precedent for authorities to regulate or deny permission for such gatherings. The specific context of Girgaum Chowpatty, where a high-powered committee oversees activities following prior High Court directions, further illustrates the stringent oversight applied to certain public spaces.

This ruling highlights the necessity for religious organizations and event planners to meticulously adhere to permit requirements and to anticipate potential challenges based on public safety or environmental concerns. The court's emphasis on the "checks and balances" within the constitutional mandate signals that the state retains considerable power to manage public spaces and ensure general welfare, even when religious observances are involved. This case serves as a reminder that securing event permission for public religious gatherings, particularly at sensitive locations, requires careful planning and compliance with established regulatory frameworks.

Lawyers advising religious organizations or event organizers in India must note that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Article 25 is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health. This ruling reinforces the precedent that authorities can deny permission for public religious events based on these considerations, requiring careful assessment of permit applications and potential challenges.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet