Bombay High Court refuses interim permission for a Chhath Puja stage at Girgaon Chowpatty

A vacation bench said religious freedom is subject to public order, morality and health, and asked why the monitoring committee was not a party. The petition returns after the Diwali vacation. Article 25 and use of public places explained.

The Bombay High Court has refused to allow a Mumbai group to set up a stage and hold Chhath Puja rituals at Girgaon Chowpatty, saying the freedom to practise religion is subject to public order, morality and health.

A vacation bench of Justices Advait M. Sethna and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale passed the order on 9 November 2026 in Mithila Chhath Puja Sangh v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 37429 of 2026.

The Sangh wanted the beach from 3 pm on 15 November to 8 am on 16 November 2026, for the evening and morning rituals of the festival. The bench refused interim permission, and the petition will be heard after the court reopens following the Diwali vacation.

What the Sangh asked for

The petitioner sought permission to build a temporary stage and arrange rituals on the beach for two days. It also asked the court to direct the authorities to give it another venue.

The DB Marg police station had refused the request on 17 September 2026. It cited earlier High Court directions under which a court-appointed committee supervises activities at Girgaon Chowpatty, and under which the permitted events are Ganeshotsav, Navratri Utsav, Ramlila, Krishnalila and Christmas. Any other programme needs prior permission from the departments concerned.

The 2018 order and the monitoring committee

The State relied on an order of 21 June 2018 in the Adarsh Chowpatty Pragati Mandal matter. It limits beach functions to a designated area of 300 feet by 150 feet and bars deviation from it without the court's express permission.

The same order requires the monitoring committee to be made a party in any case about an event or a temporary structure on the beach. The bench asked whether the Sangh had the committee's approval and had joined it to the petition, and the answer from the petitioner's counsel was not satisfactory.

A separate request that the Sangh sent to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 7 October 2026 was still pending when the court heard the matter.

What the bench said

The bench began by accepting the right: "Undoubtedly, there is a freedom of conscience, and free profession, practice and propagation of religion." It then said that India is a country of diverse religions and that "Therefore, the Court has put checks and balances in place."

The court recorded that the right under Article 25 is subject to public order, morality and health. On the request for another site it said "We express no opinion in this regard", and left the Sangh free to pursue the remedies the law allows. The order is an interim one, and the Monday hearing dealt only with immediate relief.

What Article 25 protects

Article 25(1) says that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions on fundamental rights.

M. Laxmikanth notes in Indian Polity that the right covers rituals and ceremonies as well as belief, and that it is available to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Article 25(2)(a) preserves the power of the State to regulate any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice. A temporary structure on public land, and the rules about where it may stand, are the sort of secular arrangement that regulation can reach.

Article 26 gives a separate protection to a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Like Article 25 it yields to public order, morality and health, but unlike Article 25 it does not yield to the other fundamental rights.

Rituals and the essential practice test

The Supreme Court has held that the protection of Articles 25 and 26 is not confined to doctrine or belief. In Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (2004) 12 SCC 770 it said the protection extends to rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship that are an essential or integral part of religion.

Courts therefore ask two questions in such cases. The first is whether the practice claimed is integral to the faith, and the second is whether the State may still regulate its manner on grounds of public order, morality or health.

The reports of the 9 November order show the bench on the second question and on the monitoring committee condition, and do not show it going into the first.

The petition was heard by a vacation bench, which takes up urgent matters while the High Court is closed for Diwali. A refusal of interim relief at that stage does not decide the writ petition, which is why the main hearing was left for the reopening.

Public places and religious gatherings

The Supreme Court has recognised that religious practice must yield where it affects the rights of others. In Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000) 7 SCC 282 it said that no religion prescribes that prayers be offered by disturbing the peace of others.

The constitutional commentaries record that the right of assembly does not mean a right to hold a meeting anywhere, including on government property, in the absence of a law or usage supporting it, as held in Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966.

In Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, AIR 1973 SC 87, the Court held that use of a public place is subject to the control of the appropriate authority over time and place.

Himmat Lal also holds that the State cannot prohibit assembly on every public street or public place, and a rule giving an authority unguided discretion to refuse permission for a meeting in a public place is open to challenge.

Here the refusal was tied to a court-made scheme, and the bench's first question was whether the monitoring committee had been heard.

What remains open for the Sangh

The writ petition itself stays pending. The bench said only that the Sangh may pursue the remedies available in law, and the request to the Chief Minister of 7 October 2026 had not been decided.

Chhath Puja falls on 15 and 16 November 2026, and the petition is listed for hearing on the reopening of the High Court after the Diwali vacation, for which no date has been reported.