Hindus to not travel in groups during Holi; Hyderabad Police issues notice restricting expression of Hindu identity
Hyderabad, Telangana, India 
10 March, 2025
Case Summary
In Telangana, the Hyderabad Police issued strict restrictions on Holi celebrations, significantly altering the festival's collective and joyous essence. A notice by Hyderabad Police Commissioner CV Anand prohibits Hindus from throwing colours or coloured water on "unwilling individuals, locations, and vehicles." Most notably, it bans the movement of two-wheelers and other vehicles in groups on roads and public spaces, claiming it could disturb law and order. The directive, in effect from 6:00 p.m. on March 13 to 6:00 a.m. on March 15, criminalises a fundamental aspect of Holi — group celebrations, undermining the festival's spirit, which thrives on collective revelry and togetherness. Violators face prosecution under Section 76 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, which prescribes fines and imprisonment for non-compliance. A similar notice was issued by the Cyberabad Police Commissioner, Avinash Mohanty, reinforcing restrictions on colours, water, and group movements. The BJP strongly condemned these measures, accusing the Congress-led government under CM Revanth Reddy of selectively targeting Hindu festivals while allowing unrestricted celebrations of Eid. The party questioned why such directives were not imposed on other religious gatherings, calling out the double standards.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the first 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 second 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. Here, the Telangana government very strategically clamped down on the celebrations of the festival of Holi. By banning core aspects of Holi, such as group celebrations and the traditional application of colours, the administration effectively targeted a Hindu festival under the guise of law and order concerns. The directive not only curtails the expression of Hindu identity but also reflects institutional bias, as similar restrictions are not enforced on other religious festivals. This selective imposition of prohibitions on Hindu religious practices demonstrates a pattern of systemic discrimination. The ban on group movement, particularly the restriction on two-wheelers and vehicles during Holi, is a clear attempt to suppress Hindu communal celebrations, which are an integral part of the festival’s spirit. The criminalisation of traditional Holi festivities exposes an administrative overreach designed to dilute Hindu religious customs rather than maintain public order. This restriction prevents Hindus from freely practising their faith, which is a fundamental right. Furthermore, the lack of similar restrictions on Islamic festivals like Eid exposes blatant double standards in governance. The government’s targeted regulation of Hindu festivals, while permitting unrestricted religious gatherings for other communities, reflects institutionalised discrimination and an anti-Hindu bias. The selective nature of these restrictions reveals a deeper animosity towards Hindu traditions, making this not just a case of administrative interference but a religiously motivated hate crime aimed at restricting Hindu religious expression.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
N/A
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
