West Bengal administration denies permission for Hindu religious procession on the occasion of Ram Navami
Howrah, West Bengal, India 
3 April, 2025
Case Summary
The Howrah Police has rejected the application of the 'Anjani Putra Sena' to hold a Ram Navami procession this year, citing incidents of communal violence that occurred on the same route in 2022 and 2023. Declaring the area as sensitive, the police denied permission for the traditional route, which has been used for the past 15 years for the annual procession. Last year, the Calcutta High Court had granted permission to two Hindu organisations—Anjani Putra Sena and Vishwa Hindu Parishad—to hold the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra in Howrah on April 17, 2024. However, the Howrah Police has now claimed that the organisers violated the conditions set by the court during the 2024 rally. Specifically, the police alleged that the participant limit of 200 people was exceeded, with a turnout of approximately 4,000–5,000 people, and that DJ sound systems were used, violating the court's restrictions. Furthermore, an FIR was registered against members of Anjani Putra Sena under Shibpur PS Case No. 155/24, dated April 18, 2024, invoking Section 188 of the IPC and Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The charge sheet was filed against five individuals, though all the accused have been granted bail. While denying permission for the original route this year, the police suggested two alternative routes for the procession. Objecting to this decision, Surendra Verma, founder-secretary of Anjani Putra Sena, stated that the administration attempts to block the Ram Navami procession every year using the same justification. He remarked, "People offer Namaz on the streets during Eid, but when it comes to Ram Navami, the administration has a problem." The organisation has decided to challenge the police’s decision in the High Court.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the category- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Within 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 other sub-category selected here is- Administration disallows religious procession. 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 decision of the Howrah Police to deny permission for the Ram Navami procession this year, despite the route being traditionally used for over 15 years, is a clear instance of administrative restriction on Hindu religious practice, falling under the category of a religiously motivated hate crime. The authorities have cited past incidents of communal violence in 2022 and 2023 as the basis for their decision, yet this justification raises concerns of prejudicial and selective enforcement. The Calcutta High Court had previously granted permission for the Ram Navami procession in 2024, yet the police now claim that the organisers violated conditions, including exceeding the 200-person limit and using DJ sound systems. Notably, the same High Court order was not used to prevent or restrict any other religious community’s public gatherings, indicating a pattern of targeted discrimination against Hindu religious observances. Furthermore, the filing of an FIR against members of the Anjani Putra Sena, invoking Section 188 of the IPC and the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, is yet another example of administrative action disproportionately targeting a Hindu religious event. The registration of this case, followed by the police’s subsequent blanket ban on the original route, strongly suggests that the authorities have succumbed to pressure from groups hostile to Hindu religious expressions. The alternative routes offered by the police serve as a mere symbolic gesture, failing to address the larger issue of the systematic restriction of Hindu religious processions under the pretext of law and order concerns. This aligns with a broader trend where Hindu religious processions are either prohibited outright or subjected to excessive restrictions, while religious gatherings of other communities proceed without similar administrative interventions. This case further falls under the sub-category of "Administration disallowing religious processions", as it reflects an ongoing pattern where state authorities preemptively restrict Hindu religious practices on the grounds that those harbouring animosity against Hindus might be provoked into violence. Rather than taking action against potential disruptors, the police have chosen to curtail the fundamental rights of Hindus, thereby rewarding and legitimising the hostility of groups that oppose Hindu religious traditions. Such prejudiced administrative decisions not only discriminate against Hindus but also set a dangerous precedent where religious rights are sacrificed under the guise of maintaining order. The double standards in handling public religious expressions were explicitly pointed out by Surendra Verma, the founder-secretary of Anjani Putra Sena, who noted that while street prayers for Eid continue without restriction, Hindu processions are repeatedly obstructed. This further solidifies the biased approach of the administration in regulating religious events, reinforcing the perception that the denial of the Ram Navami procession is not merely a bureaucratic decision but a systematic attempt to suppress Hindu religious identity in the public sphere. The police's decision stems from pressure exerted by groups that oppose Hindu religious practices, effectively enabling prejudiced restrictions that disproportionately target Hindus. The enforcement of these restrictions, despite judicial precedent allowing the procession, demonstrates administrative bias, making this a documented case of a religiously motivated hate crime. Furthermore, 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. This decision is an infringement on the constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression, which are fundamental in India. The move is also seen as politically and religiously biased, given the West Bengal government's history of opposing organisations associated with the Hindu nationalist movement. Further, from Hindus being arrested for chanting Jai Shri Ram slogans, to denying permissions for Hindu religious processions to her stoic silence whenever Hindus get attacked by Islamists in the state, there are several evidences to show that the Mamata Government in West Bengal has, in the past, passed umpteen prejudicial orders to clamp down on the religious rights of Hindus and show her affinity towards the Muslims in the state. The bias was further highlighted when the Calcutta High Court allowed the Hindu organisations to proceed with the yatra in West Bengal, indicating that the state administration's decision 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
male
Sources 
