Delhi police halts Shiv Baraat procession for playing DJ music near Jama Masjid
North Delhi, Delhi, India 
25 February, 2025
Case Summary
On February 25, 2025, during a Shiv Baraat procession near Jama Masjid in Chandni Chowk, Delhi Police intervened to halt the use of a DJ sound system, citing 'concerns' over potential communal tensions. The authorities claimed the decision was taken to maintain peace in a 'sensitive area'. A video shared on social media by user Angry Saffron captures the moment when police officials stopped the music, sparking discussions about religious intolerance and selective restrictions on Hindu religious processions. Many social media users questioned why similar restrictions are not imposed on processions of other communities, raising concerns about bias in law enforcement. Hindu groups have expressed their displeasure, arguing that such actions curtail religious freedom and create a precedent where Hindu festivals and processions are unfairly targeted under the pretext of maintaining communal harmony.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This incident can be classified as a hate crime under the category of- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the first sub-category 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. The second sub-category selected is- Administration Disallows Religious Procession. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious procession 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 procession, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since the religious procession is inherent 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 procession 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 process 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 has been added to the Hinduphobia tracker as it highlights institutional prejudice against Hindu religious expressions. The Shiv Baraat is an important religious procession, and halting the DJ sound system under the pretext of maintaining public order specifically in a Hindu event raises serious concerns about bias. It is important to mention here that every individual has the right to practice their religious faith and restricting someone from doing that can also be considered a prejudicial order denying the Hindu community its fundamental rights. Such arbitrary actions taken against Hindus are prejudicial to the rights of Hindus and stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindu beliefs. Furthermore, this decision to halt the Shiv Baraat procession's DJ sound system as it neared the Jama Masjid in Chandni Chowk appears to be a clear case of appeasement towards the Muslim community. The police intervention did not occur randomly but precisely when the procession reached the vicinity of the mosque, suggesting that the restriction was imposed to cater to the sentiments of the local Muslim population rather than for any neutral law-and-order concern. By curbing the Shiv Baraat procession's musical expression, the authorities have not only discriminated against Hindus but also reinforced the precedent that Hindu religious events must be modified or curtailed to accommodate Muslim sensitivities. This incident reflects a broader issue of selective restrictions, where Hindu religious expressions are consistently regulated, limited, or obstructed in areas with significant Muslim populations. This action is discriminatory and indicative of religious bias. Consequently, this incident is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
