Ram Navami processions curtailed as police administration prohibits use of DJs in Patna, Bihar
Patna, Bihar, India 
23 March, 2026
Case Summary
In the city of Patna, Bihar, Ram Navami celebrations were curtailed when the police administration imposed a complete ban on the use of DJs in religious processions, alongside extensive movement restrictions and heightened regulatory controls. The directive was issued by Inspector General of Police Jitendra Rana during an official review meeting held with police officers ahead of the festival on 24 March 2026. Clear instructions were given that any procession found using a DJ would face immediate police action, effectively prohibiting a widely practised form of religious expression associated with Ram Navami celebrations. The administration further mandated that all processions could only proceed after obtaining formal licences, which were required to specify the number of participants, sound system details, and other conditions, and no procession was permitted to take place without prior police approval and escort. Authorities also enforced strict route adherence, compulsory videography, CCTV monitoring, and continuous reporting by station heads to senior officials regarding the movement and status of each procession, indicating close surveillance and administrative control over the religious event. The administration justified these measures under the garb of maintaining law and order, ensuring traffic management, and preventing disturbances; however, the cumulative effect of the DJ ban, mandatory licensing, police escort requirements, surveillance measures, and widespread movement restrictions resulted in a heavily controlled environment for the observance of a major Hindu religious festival.
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 was a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime because the police administration in Patna used its authority to impose a complete ban on the use of DJs during Ram Navami processions, directly targeting a central and widely practised form of Hindu religious expression. The directive, issued by the Inspector General Jitendra Rana, specifically singled out Ram Navami processions for heightened restrictions, including the prohibition of DJ systems, mandatory licensing, police escort requirements, and extensive surveillance measures. These restrictions were not applied uniformly across all religious events in the region, thereby demonstrating a pattern of selective targeting. By focusing administrative control so intensely on a single Hindu festival, the administration sends a message that Hindu public worship and cultural display are less entitled to protection and space than other religious observances, which is the hallmark of religiously targeted hostility rather than neutral law and order management. The use of a DJ in Ram Navami processions is not merely entertainment; it is an integral part of how many Hindu communities experience the festival today. DJs are used to amplify devotional bhajans, chants of Jai Shri Ram and other religious songs that are traditionally sung along the procession route, allowing larger numbers of devotees to participate collectively in the worship. Ram Navami processions themselves 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 are shared, through the ban on DJ loudspeakers, is effectively to restrict the visibility and public intensity of Hindu religious celebration. Hence, imposing such arbitrary restrictions on DJs during Ram Navami processions shows that the police administration is trying 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 music through a DJ is not an illegal act, nor is it inherently provocative or violent. When the music consists of religious bhajans and devotional songs connected to Ram Navami, it is a nonviolent, peaceful expression of belief. The administration’s decision to ban DJs under the guise of general administrative or security considerations, while allowing other religious events to proceed without similar restrictions, exposes prejudice rather than genuine neutrality. The state singles out a minor, once yearly expression of Hindu faith, a single day of public celebration, where loudspeakers or DJs are used only for a short period, suggesting that the real target is not noise but the religious character of the event, which reveals a deep‑seated religious animosity towards Hindu public worship. The targeting of the DJ ban becomes even clearer when placed against the wider pattern of sound system use in the area. Ram Navami is a one‑day Hindu festival, whereas loudspeakers and similar sound systems are used repeatedly throughout the year by other religious institutions. Mosques, for example, use loudspeakers daily for the azaan, yet such uses are rarely subjected to the same kind of crackdown or restriction. It is only the one‑day Hindu celebration, Ram Navami, where the playing of DJ bhajans is singled out for a ban, which reveals a clear case of differential treatment towards Hindus. This selective targeting of Hindu religious expression, while everyday religious sound practices of other communities remain unaffected, showcases prejudice within the police administration and the broader state apparatus. When the state applies its restrictions so unevenly, it is not maintaining neutrality but actively privileging one religious practice over another, and such institutional bias against a Hindu festival fits squarely within the definition of a religiously motivated hate crime. It is also important to note that the police administration’s 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 administration 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 and 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. Additionally, the imposition of strict controls such as mandatory licences detailing participant numbers and sound systems, enforced routes, constant monitoring through CCTV and videography, and the requirement of police escorts for all processions created an environment of excessive surveillance and administrative overreach. These measures collectively transformed a religious celebration into a heavily policed activity, further reinforcing the perception that Hindu festivals were being treated as potential threats rather than legitimate cultural and religious expressions. Such treatment reflected an underlying bias that sought to regulate and contain Hindu identity in public spaces. Overall, this case met the parameters of a hate crime, including selective targeting, disproportionate restriction of religious expression, and unequal application of administrative authority, and was therefore added to the Hate Crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.' Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker recorded the perpetrator count as "1'' in this case, including only the Inspector General of Police Jitendra Rana, who issued the directive.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
