Hindu festival targeted; DJ banned, celebrations on 'Ram Navami' restricted by Police authorities in Guna, Madhya Pradesh
Guna, Madhya Pradesh, India 
25 March, 2026
Case Summary
In Guna district of Madhya Pradesh, Hindu devotees' freedom to celebrate the Hindu festival of Ram Navami was curtailed by the State administration. Restrictions were imposed, and the use of DJ music was banned by the police ahead of the festival. As per reports, the district administration strengthened security arrangements in view of Ram Navami and undertook strict monitoring measures. Surveillance was carried out using drones, and preventive steps such as bonds were executed to maintain control over the situation. Hindu devotees and youth organising the Ram Navami procession were directed not to play DJ music during the religious event. The administration imposed a complete prohibition on the use of DJs as part of the procession. The ban led to resentment among local youth, who gathered and surrounded the Kotwali police station in protest. They expressed dissatisfaction with the decision and stated that their religious and cultural practices associated with the procession were being restricted. According to reports, these measures were introduced by the administration as part of efforts to maintain law and order and prevent any untoward incidents during the Ram Navami celebrations.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
His 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 has been added to the tracker because the imposition of a blanket ban on DJ music during the Ram Navami procession amounted to a restriction on the manner in which Hindu devotees practised their faith. Firstly, the trigger of the incident lay in the religious nature of the event. The restriction was not imposed in a general or neutral setting but specifically in the context of the Ram Navami procession, a Hindu religious celebration. The participants affected were Hindu devotees who traditionally incorporate music and public expression as part of the procession. The act of banning DJs directly interfered with an established mode of religious celebration, making the religious identity of the gathering central to the restriction. Secondly, the nature of the administrative action showed a disproportionate limitation rather than a balanced regulation. While the authorities cited law and order concerns, a complete prohibition on DJ music was imposed instead of adopting measured safeguards. The use of surveillance, preventive measures, and strict enforcement further indicated a pre-emptive control over the celebration. The justification for these measures had been rooted in maintaining law and order and preventing any potential disturbance. However, this reasoning had effectively placed the burden of ensuring peace on Hindu devotees themselves. Instead of focusing on those who might disrupt harmony, the administration had imposed pre-emptive restrictions on lawful religious expression. Consequently, Hindus had been required to dilute their practices due to anticipated reactions from others, rather than any inherent illegality in their conduct. Further, the impact was visible in the reaction of the devotees themselves. The protest by local youth and the surrounding of the police station reflected that the restriction was perceived as an intrusion into their religious practices. The inability to carry out the procession in its customary form demonstrated how the ban affected both the spirit and execution of the festival. Taken together, the sequence of events showed that under the justification of maintaining order, a key aspect of a Hindu religious procession was restricted. The blanket nature of the ban, combined with strict enforcement measures, resulted in limiting the devotees’ right to practise and express their faith, bringing the case within the scope of targeted restriction on Hindu religious observance. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker recorded incident dates based on when the victim's ordeal began, rather than when the media reported it. Since the exact date of the administrative order was not specified in the report, the publication date was taken as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
