Patna: The right to profess and practice religion is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and societal norms, the Patna High Court has said.

It made the remarks while dismissing a plea seeking permission for 300 devotees to take part in an annual religious procession in Bihar's Siwan, where attendance has been restricted to maintain law and order.

The petitioner sought the court's direction to the authorities that the annual procession by a local monastic order (Akhara) organised on the 11th day of Bhadrapad Krishna Paksha, according to the Hindu calendar, be allowed to proceed on its traditional route with at least 300 devotees in attendance.

The plea claimed that the permitted number of people in attendance was reduced from 200 in 2012 and 2013 to 150 in 2014, 100 in 2015 and eventually to five in 2023 and henceforth, besides a change in the traditional route.

It was argued that the restrictions infringed on the devotees' fundamental rights under Article 25 and that the traditional route had never been the subject of any complaint of breach of peace.

The state, a respondent in the case, submitted that the restrictions were imposed as a security measure to maintain law and order.

Although the sanctioned strength was five, 1,700 to 2,000 people had actually participated in the procession between 2015 and 2022, it told the court.

It pointed out that during the 2024 procession, the crowd had set fire to a government vehicle belonging to a Block Development Officer and pelted stones at police personnel.

The state maintained that the restrictions were "not discriminatory but a considered, security-driven measure" based on verification by police.

In its August 20 judgment, the bench of Justice Alok Kumar said that while the right to profess and practise religion, including taking out religious processions, is protected under Article 19(1)(b) and Article 25 of the Constitution, "this right is not absolute".

Citing previous judgments, the court said, "Articles 25 and 26 guarantee the freedom of religion but are subject to public order, morality, and health constraints."

"As much as there is a need for freedom to practice and profess one's own religion, there is also the necessity of maintaining public tranquillity, particularly in residential areas," the judge said.

He noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that freedom of religion is not unfettered and must be harmonised with the rights of others and "societal norms".

"The constitutional protection extends only to what is essential and integral to the religious practice, not to every mode or manner of its exercise," the court observed.

On the petitioner's apprehension that the number of devotees would continue to be restricted to five, Justice Kumar held that the concern was premature.

"Such restrictions, if any, would depend on the prevailing law and order situation of the locality at the time permission is actually sought, and cannot be adjudicated upon on the basis of a hypothetical future contingency," he said. PTI