Regulation, Not Prohibition: AP High Court affirms the secular character of public roads and directs facilitation of the traditional Vinayaka immersion procession in Adoni

Introduction

In Viswa Hindu Parishad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No. 22944 of 2025, decided on 29 August 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (per Justice Harinath N.) addressed a recurring and sensitive issue at the intersection of religious freedom and public order: whether the government and police can curtail or divert a long-standing religious procession route on grounds of law and order. The petitioner, Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), through its District President, challenged the denial of permission and the diversion of the Ganesh (Lord Vinayaka) idol immersion procession in Adoni Town from the route that, according to the petitioner, has been followed for 20–30 years.

The key controversy arose after authorities, for the past two years, allegedly diverted the procession into a narrow 15-foot road, which was impracticable for taller idols exceeding 15 feet. The petitioner sought restoration of the traditional route via Arts College, Srikrishna Devalayam, Emmiganur Circle, Sri Anantha Mangala Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Nirmala Talkies, II Town Police Station, Srinivasa Bhavan, and Kotta Bridge. The State and Police pointed to a prior communal clash in 2011 (near Madina Mosque) and referenced a coordination meeting and a route map issued for processions.

Against this backdrop, the Court drew guidance from a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (2019) emphasizing that public roads are secular and that religious processions may be regulated but not prohibited. The Andhra Pradesh High Court ultimately directed the authorities to facilitate the procession along the requested traditional route with adequate policing and surveillance measures to ensure peace.

Parties:

Petitioner: Viswa Hindu Parishad, represented by its District President, Ardhageri Basavana Goud; Counsel: J.V. Phaniduth.
Respondents: (1) State of Andhra Pradesh (Principal Secretary, MA & UD), (2) Adoni Municipality, (3) Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), (4) Station House Officer, I Town PS, and (5) Station House Officer, II Town PS; Counsel: Government Pleader for Home and Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following operative directions:

Authorities are directed to facilitate the Vinayaka idol immersion procession through the route specified by the petitioner: Arts College → Srikrishna Devalayam → Emmiganur Circle → Sri Anantha Mangala Anjaneyaswamy Temple → Nirmala Talkies → II Town Police Station → Srinivasa Bhavan → Kotta Bridge.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Adoni Division), and the Station House Officers of I Town and II Town Police Stations must take all necessary steps to ensure a peaceful procession; they may deploy sufficient police personnel and machinery to that end.
Authorities may install cameras/record the procession for monitoring and to keep vigil on troublemakers.
The writ petition is disposed of without costs; any pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Note: The order contains a minor clerical inconsistency in respondent numbering when issuing directions (it refers to the “2nd respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police” even though the 2nd respondent is the Municipality and the DSP is the 3rd). Read contextually, the directions clearly bind the Municipality, the DSP (Adoni Division), and both SHOs.

Factual Matrix and Procedural History

The VHP asserted a traditional procession route in Adoni followed for roughly 20–30 years.
For the last two years, authorities allegedly diverted the procession to a narrow 15-foot road, making it physically infeasible for taller idols (some above 15 feet) to pass.
The petitioner made a representation on 26.08.2025 seeking restoration of the established route; no response was received.
The police stated they convened a coordination meeting with stakeholders and issued a route map to be followed, also referencing a serious communal incident on 05.09.2011 near the Madina Mosque leading to curfew and registration of 39 riot cases.
The Municipality’s counsel mentioned that a route map had been followed since 2004 but emphasized that the competent authority to grant permission rests with the DSP.
Given that processions could commence immediately and would culminate by 10.09.2025 (depending on pandal operators), the matter called for urgent adjudication.

Issues Before the Court

Whether the State and police authorities can deny or curtail a long-standing religious procession route based on generalized law-and-order concerns or demographic composition of localities along the route.
Whether route diversions that make the procession impracticable (e.g., compelling passage through a 15-foot lane for 15+ foot idols) are lawful and reasonable.
What positive obligations rest on the administration to enable a peaceful procession while safeguarding public order.

Arguments in Brief

Petitioner

The procession’s traditional route has been followed for decades; recent diversions are unwarranted and impose impracticable constraints.
Authorities failed to act on a timely representation seeking restoration of the route.
Reliance on Madras High Court Division Bench decision (W.A. Nos. 743 & 2064 of 2019) which declares public roads as secular spaces and that processions may be regulated, not prohibited.

Respondents

The police held a coordination meeting and issued a route map in view of law-and-order considerations, referencing the communal clashes of 2011 with 39 registered cases and imposition of curfew in Adoni.
The municipality noted the existence of a route map regime since 2004 and deferred to the DSP as the competent authority for permissions.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The decision explicitly references a 2019 Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court (W.A. Nos. 743 & 2064 of 2019). That Bench articulated eight principles, of which the following are central to the present case:

Public roads and streets are “secular” spaces to be used by all, irrespective of religion, caste, or creed.
Religious processions cannot be prohibited or curtailed merely because another religious group predominantly resides or maintains places of worship along the route.
District administration and police may regulate processions to avert untoward incidents but cannot impose prohibitions; regulation, not prohibition, is the norm.
All religious groups enjoy the fundamental right to take out processions along public roads, subject to maintaining public order and respecting others’ sentiments (i.e., no insulting or inflammatory conduct).
The mere presence of places of worship of another faith on the route is not a valid ground to deny or divert a procession.

While the Madras High Court also directed withdrawal of criminal cases filed by both sides in that specific controversy, the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not adopt that aspect here. Instead, the AP High Court extracted and applied the core constitutional principle: public roads are secular, and the State’s role is regulatory and facilitative, not prohibitive.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s reliance on this persuasive authority underscores a convergence across High Courts on the constitutional management of religious processions: the focus must be on reasonable regulation to preserve public order, not on blanket prohibitions or impractical diversions absent compelling and specific reasons.

Legal Reasoning and Principles Applied

Although concise, the Court’s reasoning reflects settled constitutional doctrine:

Freedom of religion and its manifestations in public space (Article 25) and the rights to assemble peacefully and move freely (Articles 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d)) are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, and health. The State’s duty is to regulate these rights so they are exercised safely and harmoniously, rather than to extinguish them.
Historic use of a procession route for decades creates a factual baseline against which any restrictive deviation must be justified. Mere administrative convenience or generalized apprehensions cannot displace a long-standing practice without concrete, proximate, and compelling reasons.
The respondents’ reference to the 2011 clashes underscored a genuine law-and-order episode, but a remote incident cannot by itself justify an inflexible ban or impractical diversion in 2025. The constitutionally appropriate response is enhanced regulation: coordination, deployment, surveillance, and real-time monitoring to prevent a recurrence, not categorical prohibition.
Practical feasibility matters. Forcing idols exceeding 15 feet through a 15-foot lane is not a neutral, reasonable regulation; it effectively nullifies the procession. The Court implicitly rejects such disguised prohibitions, favoring proportionate measures that enable the procession while preserving order.
Positive obligation of the State: The Court directs the police to “facilitate” the procession and to “deploy adequate personnel and machinery,” including installing cameras and recording the event. This reflects a positive duty model—authorities must take reasonable steps to make the exercise of rights possible and safe.

In essence, the Court applies a proportionality-inflected approach: if rights can be safely accommodated through less restrictive means (policing, surveillance, coordination), authorities must prefer those over outright denial or impracticable diversions.

Operative Directions Unpacked

Route restoration: The Court specifies the precise route, thereby resolving the dispute over diversion. This has the practical effect of superseding any conflicting route map for the current festivities.
Law-and-order measures: The DSP (Adoni Division) and SHOs of I Town and II Town PS must:
- Assess and deploy adequate police presence along the route, particularly at sensitive intersections and near places of worship of all communities.
- Use technology (CCTV/camera recording) to create accountability and deter mischief.
- Continuously monitor the procession to identify and neutralize troublemakers promptly.
Administrative coordination: While the judgment references the police’s earlier coordination meeting, the orders effectively mandate renewed coordination among the Municipality, DSP, and SHOs to ensure real-time facilitation.
Temporal context: The directions are tailored to the 2025 Ganesh immersion cycle, which the Court notes would conclude by 10.09.2025. Although not framed as a permanent route fixation, the reasoning offers a durable standard for future years.
No costs; closure of miscellaneous petitions: Reflects the urgency and public-law character of the relief.

Impact and Implications

On administrative discretion

Authorities must prioritize regulation over prohibition. Diversions or denials must be tightly justified with specific, current, and proximate law-and-order assessments, not general historical incidents.
Long-standing routes carry significant weight; changes should be exceptional, evidence-based, and minimally impair the exercise of rights.
Police are expected to adopt technology (CCTV, recordings) and deploy adequate manpower as preventive and accountability tools.

On inter-faith coexistence and equal access

The judgment endorses the “secular roads” doctrine: no religious community has a superior claim to public streets, and the mere presence of another community’s place of worship is not a lawful ground to deny passage.
This principle protects all religious groups equally. Its logic applies not only to Vinayaka processions but also to Muharram, Milad-un-Nabi, Rath Yatra, church processions, and other religious events, subject to reasonable regulation.

On future litigation and policy

Within Andhra Pradesh, the order will be persuasive in analogous conflicts, encouraging authorities to craft reasoned, proportionate regulatory plans rather than resorting to blanket curtailments.
The Court’s reliance on a sister High Court’s Division Bench pronouncement suggests a converging national approach—use roads as secular public spaces and manage risks through targeted regulation.

Operationalization

Expect formalized SOPs for festival season processions: pre-event stakeholder meetings, route risk mapping, interdiction plans, camera coverage, and clear do’s/don’ts for organizers.
The emphasis on video recording may deter misconduct and support post-event accountability, thereby reducing future reliance on blunt restrictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Secular roads” doctrine: Public roads are civic spaces available to all citizens regardless of religion. No community may claim exclusive control; the State must ensure neutral, non-discriminatory access subject to safety regulation.
Regulation vs. prohibition: Regulation includes measures like fixed timings, designated routes, volume limits, security deployments, and restrictions near sensitive locations. Prohibition is a complete denial or an impractical diversion that defeats the event. The former is preferred; the latter requires compelling justification.
Proportionality: When fundamental rights are restricted, the State should adopt the least restrictive means that effectively address the risk. Here, more police and surveillance are less restrictive than banning or impractically diverting the procession.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226: High Courts can issue directions to public authorities to enforce legal/constitutional rights, especially where urgent relief is needed and administrative inaction would cause irreparable harm (e.g., time-bound festivals).
Traditional route relevance: Consistent historic use of a path weighs in favor of continuity unless specific, demonstrable risks justify a change; it is a factual consideration guiding the balance between rights and public order.

Practical Guidance for Stakeholders

For organizers

Submit early, written representations specifying routes, timings, estimated participants, and measures for self-regulation (volunteers, liaison officers, code of conduct).
Coordinate with police on sensitive points; avoid provocative slogans, music, or actions that can inflame sentiments, particularly near places of worship of other communities.
Respect conditions imposed for safety (speed, timing, sound levels, crowd control) and maintain video documentation to assist in accountability.

For authorities

Respond to representations promptly with a reasoned order. Where risks are identified, propose tailored regulatory measures rather than blanket denials.
Deploy adequate personnel, establish CCTV coverage, and maintain a command-and-control mechanism for real-time monitoring and quick response.
Engage civil society and community leaders in pre-event coordination to defuse flashpoints and secure consensus on acceptable conduct.

Possible Points of Debate

The order does not lay out detailed intelligence inputs or a comparative analysis of route risks; critics may argue for more granular reasoning. However, the immediacy of the festival and the availability of less restrictive means (policing and technology) justify the Court’s facilitative approach.
Infrastructure constraints (e.g., overhead wires, bottlenecks) were not specifically addressed; these remain to be operationally managed by the Municipality and Police under the Court’s facilitation mandate.
The 2011 clashes were serious, but their remoteness in time and the availability of modern crowd-control tools support the Court’s choice of regulation over prohibition.

Conclusion

Viswa Hindu Parishad v. State of Andhra Pradesh reaffirms a vital constitutional equilibrium: public roads are secular, and the State’s role in managing religious processions is to regulate for safety, not to prohibit. By directing facilitation of the traditional Adoni route and mandating robust policing and surveillance, the Andhra Pradesh High Court endorses a proportionate, rights-compatible approach that can serve as a template for festival-season governance across the State.

Key takeaways:

Regulation, not prohibition, is the default for religious processions on public roads.
Long-standing routes merit continuity absent specific, proximate, and compelling contrary reasons.
The presence of other communities’ places of worship is not, by itself, a valid ground to deny passage.
Authorities bear a positive duty to enable peaceful processions through adequate deployment and technological monitoring.

The judgment’s significance lies in its clear affirmation of equality in access to civic spaces and its insistence that the State manage risks through focused, proportionate measures. In a plural democracy, such guidance strengthens both constitutional freedoms and public order.

Case details: Viswa Hindu Parishad v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 22944 of 2025, decided on 29.08.2025 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, per Justice Harinath N.