Hindu festival targeted; High court bans DJ use in Ram Navami processions in Palamu, Jharkhand
Palamu, Jharkhand, India 
16 March, 2026
Case Summary
In Palamu district of Jharkhand, restrictions were imposed on Hindu religious celebrations as the Jharkhand High Court banned the use of DJ music during Ram Navami processions across multiple areas, including Vishrampur, Naudiha Bazaar, and Chhatarpur. The decision was made by the Jharkhand High Court and was communicated through a series of peace committee meetings held at local police station premises in the days leading up to the festival. In Vishrampur, a meeting was held on 17 March 2026, chaired by Police Inspector Ramashish Paswan, which was attended by Block Development Officer Rajiv Kumar Singh, Station House Officer Rishikesh Dubey, and other administrative and police officials, along with elected representatives and members of both communities, where discussions focused on maintaining order during Ram Navami, Eid, Chaitra Chhath, and Sarhul. Similarly, in Naudiha Bazaar, a meeting chaired by Station House Officer Amit Kumar Dwivedi and attended by SDPO Awadh Yadav, Circle Officer Sanjay Kumar Singh, and other officials resulted in clear instructions that DJ music would not be permitted during Ram Navami celebrations, with the administration directing that the festival be observed in a “traditional manner” and citing court orders as the basis for the restriction. In Chhatarpur, a separate meeting with representatives of various Akharas, chaired by Police Inspector Dwarka Ram, reiterated that the Jharkhand government had enforced a statewide prohibition on DJ music during religious processions, and that any violation would be treated as contempt of court. Akhara members were required to formally agree to comply with these directives. The administration emphasised adherence to these restrictions while appealing for peace and communal harmony during the festival period, with police officials warning of legal consequences for non-compliance and deploying oversight mechanisms to ensure enforcement of the imposed limitations on Ram Navami processions.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. The subcategory selected is- Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. This case constituted a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime because the Jharkhand High Court imposed restrictions on the use of DJ music during Ram Navami processions across areas such as Vishrampur, Naudiha Bazaar, and Chhatarpur in Palamu, Jharkhand, directly targeting a visible and widely practised form of Hindu religious expression. The restriction was enforced through official peace committee meetings and police directives, where the High Court explicitly instructed that DJs would not be permitted during the Ram Navami festival and that any violation would invite legal consequences, including contempt of court. Although these directions were justified on the basis of a High Court order, the enforcement in practice singled out a specific Hindu religious procession, thereby curtailing a key aspect of how the festival is publicly observed. By focusing its administrative action on a one-day, deeply devotional Hindu festival, the Jharkhand High Court sent a message that Hindu public worship and cultural display were less entitled to protection and space than other religious observances, which was the hallmark of religiously targeted hostility rather than neutral law and order management. The use of a DJ in Ram Navami processions was not merely entertainment; it was an integral part of how many Hindu communities experienced the festival. DJs amplified devotional bhajans, chants of Jai Shri Ram and other religious songs traditionally sung along the procession route, allowing larger numbers of devotees to participate collectively in worship. Ram Navami processions are annual, highly symbolic events where Hindus publicly express their faith, devotion and joy, often spanning long distances through towns and neighbourhoods. To restrict the means by which these bhajans and chants were shared, the ban on DJ loudspeakers effectively restricted the visibility and public intensity of Hindu religious celebration. Hence, imposing such arbitrary restrictions on DJs during Ram Navami processions showed that the Jharkhand High Court tried to suppress the outward expression of Hindu faith and identity, forcibly limiting the sacred playing of bhajans dedicated to Lord Ram and revealing an institutionalised bias and discrimination against Hindu religious festivals. Playing devotional music through a DJ was not an illegal act, nor was it inherently provocative or violent. When the music consisted of religious bhajans and devotional songs connected to Ram Navami, it was a non-violent, peaceful expression of belief. The court's decision to ban DJs under the guise of general administrative or security considerations, while allowing other religious events to proceed without similar restrictions, exposed prejudice rather than genuine neutrality. The court singled out a minor, once-yearly expression of Hindu faith, a single day of public celebration where loudspeakers or DJs were used only for a short period, suggesting that the real target was not noise but the religious character of the event, which revealed deep-seated religious animosity towards Hindu public worship. The targeting of the DJ ban became even clearer when placed against the wider pattern of sound system use in the area. Ram Navami was a one-day Hindu festival, whereas loudspeakers and similar sound systems were used repeatedly throughout the year by other religious institutions. Mosques, for example, used loudspeakers daily for the azaan, yet such uses were rarely subjected to the same kind of crackdown or restriction. It was only the one-day Hindu celebration, Ram Navami, where the playing of DJ bhajans was singled out for a ban, which revealed clear differential treatment towards Hindus. This selective targeting of Hindu religious expression, while everyday religious sound practices of other communities remained unaffected, showcased prejudice within the judicial circle and the broader state apparatus. When the judiciary applied its restrictions so unevenly, it did not maintain neutrality but actively privileged one religious practice over another, and such institutional bias against a Hindu festival fitted squarely within the definition of a religiously motivated hate crime. It is also important to note that the judiciary ban on DJs was done to supposedly maintain a better law and order situation, arguing that the playing of Ram Navami bhajans through DJ systems across India has triggered anti‑Hindu radical elements to attack processions. They assert that chants of Jai Shri Ram and the use of Ram bhajans through loudspeakers have been used as pretexts for violence by radical groups, leading to clashes and unrest. However, in this case, instead of strengthening security, controlling these anti‑social elements or preventing attacks on Hindus, the administration responds by restricting the very religious expression that is targeted by those extremists. The state effectively shifts the burden away from protecting Hindu devotees and onto silencing them, appeasing radical groups rather than confronting them. By restricting the right of Hindus to play bhajans through DJs on Ram Navami, the judiciary reveals a biased stance that prioritises the comfort of potential attackers over the constitutional rights of Hindu worshippers, and that makes the restriction a clear case of religiously motivated discrimination. Further, it is important to mention here that every individual or community has the right to practice their religious faith in the manner that is meaningful to them, within the bounds of the law; to single out a Hindu festival and impose arbitrary limitations on how devotees may express their beliefs, such as banning the use of DJ‑amplified bhajans, is to interfere with that fundamental right and can also be considered a prejudicial order denying the Hindu community its constitutional guarantees. Such arbitrary actions taken specifically against Hindu religious observances reflect animosity and prejudice towards Hindu beliefs and Hindu identity, and they go beyond routine administrative control into the realm of religious targeting, particularly when the state uses its authority not to protect Hindu worshippers but to curtail their religious expression, thereby undermining both the principle of equal treatment before the law and the rights of Hindus as equal citizens. Such actions stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindus and their beliefs, making it a religiously motivated offence. Overall, the Palamu case meets several parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, including selective restriction of a Hindu festival, curtailment of recognised forms of religious expression, and unequal enforcement of regulatory measures. The manner in which the ban on DJ music was imposed and enforced reflected institutional bias and resulted in the suppression of Hindu religious practices, thereby meeting the criteria for inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker as a case of religiously motivated discrimination. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. Since the peace meeting was held on 17 March 2026, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date of the incident as 17 March 2026.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
