Introduction:
In a significant pronouncement reinforcing the spirit of religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Padam Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No.12099 of 2024), delivered on October 17, 2025, by Justice Sandeep Sharma, held that the prohibition imposed by local authorities and village committees on members of other villages from entering and worshipping at the Mahasu Devta Temple in Village Gaunkhar, District Shimla, was unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that such blanket bans infringe upon the citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, and the right of every religious denomination or section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The case arose out of a dispute between villagers of Gaunkhar and neighboring villages regarding temple entry during Diwali celebrations. The petitioners, led by Padam Sharma, argued that the entry of outsiders during the festival had led to violence, disorder, and fear among the residents. On the other hand, the respondents contended that Mahasu Devta Temple was their ancestral place of worship, and no authority could bar them from exercising their constitutional right to participate in religious ceremonies.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Ankush Dass Sood and Mr. N.S. Chandel, contended that the villagers of Gaunkhar had been facing repeated instances of violence and unruly behavior by outsiders during the annual Diwali celebrations at the Mahasu Devta Temple. They argued that the entry of people from neighboring villages, allegedly under the influence of alcohol and carrying weapons, had resulted in several altercations, manhandling incidents, and police complaints in previous years, particularly in 2023. The petitioners submitted that these acts disrupted the peace and tranquility of the village and created a serious threat to law and order. They pointed out that, in view of these disturbances, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Kupvi, exercising his administrative authority, had earlier passed an order restraining residents of neighboring villages from entering Gaunkhar during the Diwali celebrations. This order was passed after mutual consent was recorded, as all village representatives had agreed that Diwali should be celebrated separately in each village to prevent communal clashes and preserve local traditions peacefully.
According to the petitioners, the SDM’s order was not arbitrary but a preventive measure aimed at maintaining public order, which is a valid restriction under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. They maintained that the order did not curtail religious freedom but only regulated the timing and manner of celebration to ensure public safety. They further argued that the sanctity of the Mahasu Devta Temple was being compromised by the disorderly behavior of people from outside villages, and therefore, a localized celebration of Diwali within each village was a reasonable solution. The petitioners stressed that the purpose of the restraint was not to deny anyone’s right to worship but to prevent the recurrence of violent incidents that had traumatized local devotees and tarnished the religious spirit of the festival.
Additionally, the petitioners raised concerns regarding the administrative inaction following repeated incidents of violence, alleging that the local police and authorities had failed to ensure security during the festivals in previous years. Therefore, they contended that judicial intervention was necessary to protect the residents’ right to live peacefully and practice religion without fear of physical harm. They also urged the Court to direct the administration to enforce the SDM’s earlier order strictly and ensure that only residents of Gaunkhar participate in the temple’s Diwali rituals to preserve local harmony and maintain the sanctity of worship.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On the other side, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Shrawan Dogra along with other counsels, vehemently opposed the petitioners’ plea, asserting that the restrictions imposed by the SDM were unconstitutional and beyond his jurisdiction. They argued that the Mahasu Devta Temple was an ancient and revered place of worship that had been historically open to devotees from multiple villages, as Mahasu Devta was the common deity of the entire region. Therefore, no single village could claim exclusive rights over the temple or its worship. They contended that prohibiting people from neighboring villages from entering the temple amounted to an infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The respondents highlighted that the Constitution enshrines the right of every person to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order, morality, and health. They argued that the SDM’s order lacked statutory backing and could not override constitutional guarantees. They further maintained that while certain individuals may have engaged in misconduct or illegal acts, such behavior cannot justify a collective punishment against an entire community. Quoting established principles of constitutional law, they asserted that penalizing all devotees for the misdeeds of a few would amount to an unreasonable, disproportionate, and discriminatory restriction on religious freedom.
The respondents also questioned the legitimacy of the SDM’s authority to pass such an order, contending that he was not empowered under any law to restrict religious gatherings or access to temples, except in extraordinary circumstances involving public order or imminent threat. They argued that the alleged incidents of violence could have been handled through proper policing and law enforcement, rather than by issuing a sweeping directive banning entry to an entire population. The respondents emphasized that the temple’s management and rituals were governed by customary traditions passed down through generations, and any administrative interference with these religious practices would amount to a violation of Article 26(b), which grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
Further, the respondents submitted that the SDM’s order was not only unconstitutional but also socially divisive, as it sowed seeds of enmity between neighboring villages that had coexisted and worshipped together for centuries. They cautioned that such state-imposed restrictions could set a dangerous precedent by allowing local administrative officers to interfere with the fundamental rights of citizens in the name of maintaining law and order, without following due process or proportionality principles. Therefore, they prayed that the Court quash the SDM’s order and restore the rights of all devotees to freely participate in the Diwali celebrations and worship Mahasu Devta in accordance with their ancestral customs.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
Justice Sandeep Sharma, while delivering the judgment, undertook a detailed examination of the constitutional principles governing freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The Court observed that these provisions guarantee not only individual rights to practice and propagate religion but also collective rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The Court underscored that any restriction on such rights must be narrowly tailored and based on the specific grounds enumerated in the Constitution — namely, public order, morality, and health.
The Court noted that while maintaining law and order during religious festivals is a legitimate administrative concern, imposing a blanket ban on the participation of entire communities in temple worship cannot be justified. Justice Sharma remarked, “Illegal acts of a handful of people cannot be a ground to take away the right of freedom, profess, practice and propagate religion of the public at large.” The Court further observed that the imposition of blanket prohibitions is antithetical to constitutional values and cannot substitute effective law enforcement. Instead of restricting fundamental rights, authorities are expected to ensure peace through preventive and regulatory measures that are proportionate to the situation.
The Court stressed that the freedom to profess and practice religion is one of the cornerstones of India’s secular democracy. Any administrative order that interferes with such rights must withstand the test of reasonableness and proportionality. Referring to precedents such as Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954) and Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Court reaffirmed that the State must remain neutral in matters of religion and cannot discriminate or restrict access to places of worship without a constitutionally valid basis.
Justice Sharma highlighted that the SDM’s order, though intended to maintain peace, was excessive in scope and devoid of legal justification. The Court observed that while the petitioners’ grievances regarding violence and disorder were genuine, the solution lay not in curtailing fundamental rights but in strengthening preventive mechanisms, such as adequate police deployment, crowd regulation, and community dialogue. The Court reasoned that administrative convenience or fear of law and order issues cannot justify the curtailment of constitutional freedoms.
In strong terms, the Court stated, “Imposition of restraint is no solution. Freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion and to manage its own affairs in matters of religion cannot be taken away by passing a blanket order.” The judgment emphasized that a democratic State must balance the right to religious freedom with the duty to maintain public order, but such balance cannot be achieved through arbitrary prohibitions. Instead, harmony must be sought through dialogue, mutual respect, and administrative vigilance.
Consequently, the High Court held that the SDM’s order restraining inhabitants of other villages from entering the Mahasu Devta Temple in Gaunkhar during Diwali celebrations was unconstitutional, violative of Articles 25 and 26, and therefore unsustainable in law. However, the Court also acknowledged the underlying tensions between the communities and the potential for disturbances during large gatherings. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order, the Court directed both parties to resolve their differences amicably and in a spirit of mutual respect.
Justice Sharma advised that local authorities should engage with community representatives to establish peaceful mechanisms for organizing festivals, ensuring that religious rights are preserved while maintaining law and order. The Court also instructed the district administration and police to take proactive measures during future religious events to prevent untoward incidents and protect the rights and safety of all participants.
In conclusion, the Court’s ruling reaffirmed that the right to worship is an inviolable aspect of personal liberty and cannot be abridged by administrative fiat. The judgment serves as a reminder that constitutional freedoms must be preserved even in the face of local disputes, and the rule of law must operate within the framework of rights rather than restrictions.