The Allahabad High Court has refused to direct the Uttar Pradesh administration to allow a Muharram Alam/Tazia procession through a newly proposed route in Sambhal district, holding that while the Constitution protects the right to practice religion, it does not confer a fundamental right to insist on using a particular road for a religious procession.
Background of the Case
The public interest litigation was filed by Sharif Ahmad and others, who claimed to be social workers representing members of the local community. They sought permission for the Muharram procession scheduled for June 26–27, 2026, to reach the Karbala through a different route after the traditional railway crossing used between 1952 and 2022 was permanently closed following an accident and the construction of a wall by the Railways.
According to the petitioners, the alternative route currently available significantly increased the travel time for the procession. They argued that repeated representations made to the authorities since 2023 had not resulted in any decision permitting the proposed route.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar examined the stand taken by the district administration. The State informed the Court that an earlier agreement regarding the customary route had already been recorded and entered in the official festival register. Under that arrangement, the procession would move up to a designated point near the government tubewell, where the religious rites would be completed in the agreed manner.
The administration also opposed the request for the new route, stating that it passed through the Sirsi-Bilari Main Road and had been objected to by members of another community. It maintained that permitting the new route would amount to creating a new tradition and could adversely affect law and order.
The Bench accepted that maintaining public order is a legitimate responsibility of the civil and police authorities while regulating religious processions.
The bench observed,
"The exercise of a right to practice one's religion is one thing and to practice it in a particular way is different.’"
The Court further said that decisions regarding procession routes involve assessment of local conditions, public order and community concerns. It noted that refusing permission for one particular route does not amount to prohibiting the religious practice itself.
Emphasising the constitutional position, the Bench observed,
“There is absolutely no fundamental right to the practice of one's religion, that may entitle them or the community to use a particular road for the performance of religious rites.”
Decision
Holding that the petitioners could not compel the authorities to approve the newly proposed route for the 2026 Muharram procession, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant the relief sought in the public interest litigation and upheld the administration's decision to regulate the procession route in the interest of law and public order.
Case Details
Case Title: Sharif Ahmad and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Public Interest Litigation No. 1495 of 2026
Judge: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar
Decision Date: 26 June 2026
