Hindu festival celebrations curbed; blanket ban on DJ, restrictive conditions imposed on Hindu devotees by Police administration in Dhanbad, Jharkhand
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India 
23 March, 2026
Case Summary
In Dhanbad district of Jharkhand, the Hindu festival was unduly restricted, and regulatory measures were imposed by the police administration ahead of the Ram Navami celebrations by police administration. The directives were issued under the supervision of Senior Superintendent of Police Prabhat Kumar, who stated that there would be zero tolerance for any violation of the prescribed rules during the festival. The administration emphasised that any form of negligence or breach of guidelines would invite strict legal action. As part of these measures, all Akhara committees and procession groups were instructed to strictly follow the routes mentioned in their licences, with any deviation being completely prohibited. Additionally, participation in each procession was capped at a maximum of 100 individuals to ensure crowd control and security management. The administration also mandated a detailed identification and monitoring system. Akhara committees were required to submit lists of 20 designated volunteers along with their names, mobile numbers, and photo identity cards to the concerned police stations. Every individual participating in the procession was also required to carry identification to enable immediate action in case of any suspicious activity. Further, organisers were directed to ensure complete videography and photography of the entire procession, making it mandatory to record all activities for monitoring and evidentiary purposes. The police also imposed a complete ban on DJ music during the processions and prohibited any songs, slogans, or content supposedly deemed objectionable or offensive to any community. Surveillance was intensified through physical verification of routes, deployment of additional police personnel, and use of drones in sensitive areas to monitor activities in real time. Special measures were also taken to monitor social media platforms, with strict warnings issued against the circulation of inflammatory or misleading content. The police stated that strict legal action would be taken against those spreading rumours or attempting to incite unrest. In addition, a special traffic plan was prepared to manage movement during 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 categorised 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. The other sub-category is- Restriction on the expression of Hindu identity. An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group, which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus, is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would therefore be categorised as a hate crime. This case constituted a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime because the restrictions were imposed specifically in the context of Ram Navami, a Hindu festival, where the administration in Dhanbad placed extensive conditions, surveillance, and limitations on how processions could be conducted. The trigger was not a general administrative concern but the very act of Hindus preparing to celebrate their faith publicly. What made this instance more telling was the scale of control imposed. Participation was capped, identities were recorded, routes were fixed, and constant monitoring through videography and drones was mandated. These were not ordinary precautionary steps. They transformed a religious procession into a tightly controlled and surveilled activity, reflecting suspicion rather than facilitation of a lawful festival. Further, the ban on DJ music directly affected how Ram Navami was experienced. Devotional bhajans, chants of Jai Shri Ram, and collective singing are central to such processions. By restricting this, the administration reduced the visibility and vibrancy of the celebration. It was not merely sound regulation; it was a limitation on how openly Hindus could express their faith. Moreover, while maintaining law and order was necessary, the manner in which it was enforced was clearly superimposed. There was no indication that the devotees themselves were creating unrest or disturbing communal harmony. Yet, the restrictions were imposed on them. Instead of identifying and restraining those who could potentially cause disruption, the administration chose to curb the movements and expression of those celebrating peacefully. This shifted the burden onto Hindus, making them responsible for maintaining peace by limiting their own religious practices. This imbalance exposed a deeper problem. The state did not act against the source of possible tension but instead pre-emptively restricted the victims. Those who wished to celebrate were controlled, monitored, and limited. Their movements were curtailed, their participation reduced, and their expression moderated, even though they were not the ones infringing on peace. Additionally, the selective nature of such restrictions could not be ignored. Measures of this intensity repeatedly appeared around Hindu festivals, while similar scrutiny was rarely seen in other religious contexts. This created a clear double standard. By consistently intervening only in Hindu celebrations, the administration portrayed these gatherings as potential threats. Over time, this built a narrative where Hindus were treated not as devotees exercising rights, but as likely culprits who needed prior restraint. It was also significant that participation in a religious procession required identification, documentation, and compliance with multiple conditions. What should have been a matter of right was reduced to a monitored activity requiring approval and tracking. This reflected a shift from the protection of religious freedom to control over it. In the broader context, such incidents were not isolated. Across regions, Hindu festivals were increasingly subjected to conditions, restrictions, and heightened scrutiny under the guise of maintaining order. At the same time, the root causes of tension were often left unaddressed. This pattern normalised the idea that Hindu expression in public spaces required control rather than protection. Taken together, the facts revealed a consistent pattern of differential treatment. Each time a Hindu festival approached, elements such as music, movement, and participation were restricted. This repeated intervention subtly but clearly portrayed Hindu celebrations as sources of disruption. Such framing diminished the legitimacy of Hindu religious expression and reinforced a bias where Hindus were seen as instigators by default, thereby meeting the criteria of a religiously motivated hate crime. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker recorded the perpetrator count as one (1) in this case, including only the Senior Superintendent of Police Prabhat Kumar, as the official responsible for issuing the administrative order that banned the use of DJs in the Ram Navami procession.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
