The Bombay High Court has declined to pass any further orders on a petition seeking permission to organise Chhath Puja celebrations at Girgaon Chowpatty in Mumbai on November 15 and 16, 2026. The Vacation Bench observed that the organisers had not satisfactorily addressed the requirements laid down in earlier court directions concerning events at the beach.
Background
Mithila Chhath Puja Sangh approached the High Court after the DB Marg Police Station refused permission to construct a stage and make arrangements for Chhath Puja at Girgaon Chowpatty. The proposed event was scheduled from 3 PM on November 15 until 8 AM on November 16, 2026.
In its communication dated September 17, 2026, the police cited directions issued by the High Court regarding events permitted at Girgaon Chowpatty. The Sangh had also submitted a representation to the Maharashtra Chief Minister on October 7, 2026, seeking the necessary permission. The representation was still pending when the matter came before the Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale examined earlier directions issued in Adarsh Chowpatty Pragati Mandal v. Others, particularly the requirement concerning the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Court.
The Bench noted that the committee was required to be made a party to proceedings concerning permissions for events or temporary structures at the beach. However, when questioned about compliance with these directions and the committee's permission, the petitioner's counsel had no satisfactory answer.
The Court also referred to Article 25 of the Constitution, observing:
"The mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of India is crystal clear. Undoubtedly, there is a freedom of conscience, and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. However, the same is subject to public order, morality and health, as provided in the constitutional provision. In other words, there are checks and balances which are provided and required to be followed, under such constitutional mandate."
The petitioner also requested directions for an alternative venue to conduct the celebrations. However, the Bench declined to express any opinion on the request, leaving the petitioner free to pursue remedies available under law.
Concluding the matter, the Court held:
"For all of the above reasons, at this stage, we are not inclined to pass any further orders. Let the matter be listed on reopening, in due course."
Accordingly, the High Court passed no further directions on the requested permission and directed that the matter be listed after the Court reopens.
