Hindu group denied premission for Hanuman Jayanti procession at venue where Eid celebration was allowed
Kolkata, West Bengal, India 
11 April, 2025
Case Summary
The Calcutta High Court has denied permission to Hindu organisations to hold a shobha yatra (religious procession) on Hanuman Jayanti along Indira Gandhi Sarani (formerly Red Road) in Kolkata. The single-judge bench, led by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, cited concerns over traffic disruption and crowd management as reasons for the refusal. The plea had been filed by the Hindu Seva Dal after their prior request to the police went unanswered. In response to the court’s decision, the Hindu Seva Dal announced that it would appeal to a division bench of the High Court. The organisation argued that the procession was a vital aspect of religious expression and that denying it amounted to a restriction of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly. The petitioner also pointed out that members of the Muslim community were permitted to gather at the same location on March 31 for Eid celebrations, while their request for Hanuman Jayanti at the same venue was rejected. It was argued that the police are responsible for managing law and order and that there should be no disruption since the program was scheduled to take place between 5 AM and 11 AM. The state, however, opposed this argument, stating that for a religious event being held at a location for the first time, the petitioner must establish a legal right to do so, especially in the absence of any specific religious significance attached to the venue. It was further asserted that unless the location held essential importance in the religion, no individual could claim the use of a public space as a matter of right. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, upon reviewing the arguments, ruled that in order to assert a right to perform a religious activity at a public place for the first time, that right must be established before the court, especially when the administration has denied permission. He also noted that such determination cannot be made without the exchange of affidavits. Accordingly, the court directed that affidavits be submitted on the matter.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added as a religiously motivated hate crime under the prime category- Restriction/Ban on Hindu Practices. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Restriction on 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 categorized as a hate crime. The other sub-category selected is- Administration disallows religious procession, and within this tertiary category selected is- 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 is categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime because it involved a prejudicial restriction on the public expression of Hindu religious identity. Denying permission for a shobha yatra on Hanuman Jayanti—despite the absence of any law and order breakdown or concrete security threat—constitutes an administrative decision that directly curtails the Hindu community’s right to peacefully practise and celebrate their faith in public. The refusal was not based on any unlawful or inflammatory intent from the organisers, but rather on vague concerns about traffic and potential crowd-related issues—concerns that are often disproportionately applied to Hindu religious events. What amplifies the discriminatory nature of this act is the fact that permission was previously granted to members of the Muslim community to hold Eid celebrations at the very same location—Indira Gandhi Sarani (formerly Red Road)—just days before, on March 31. This clear instance of differential treatment reveals an evident bias in the administration’s decision-making process. Such preferential treatment given to one religious group, while imposing arbitrary restrictions on another, reflects not only selective enforcement but also a broader pattern of Muslim appeasement. This pattern aligns with the West Bengal government's well-documented 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. Furthermore, when a state or judiciary obstructs Hindu religious events on pretexts like public inconvenience—yet allows similar or even larger gatherings from other communities—it sends a message that Hindu religious rights are conditional, expendable, or politically inconvenient. The refusal to permit a peaceful and traditional religious expression such as the shobha yatra not only undermines the Hindu community’s constitutional rights but also signals that the state is susceptible to pressures from groups antagonistic to Hindu practices. This makes the denial not merely an administrative action but an ideologically charged one, rooted in discrimination and bias, qualifying it as a hate crime.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
