Hindus denied permission for Holi procession, issue ultimatum to vacate village
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India 
11 March, 2025
Case Summary
In the Duawawat village, located in the Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, Hindu villagers were denied permission to hold a Holi procession with a DJ. The villagers cited past years' religious processions as precedent, arguing that the Holi procession had previously taken place in a similar manner. However, permission was refused, claiming concerns over religious tensions. According to news reports, in Duawawat village, within the Hafizganj police station area, Hindus were prohibited from carrying out a Holi procession with a DJ. The administration dismissed the procession as a ‘new tradition’ and refused permission. The village was a witness to a long-standing dispute between Hindus and Muslims over vacant land near Brahmadev Sthal. Due to this, police forces were deployed. When the Hindu villagers requested permission to hold the Holi procession, the police denied it on ‘security grounds.’ This implied that a Holi procession with a DJ could provoke communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims. Consequently, permission was denied. The Hindu villagers claimed that such processions had taken place in previous years and even presented photos and videos as proof. Despite this, the police refused to grant permission. This decision angered the Hindu villagers, who staged a protest and threatened to vacate the village and migrate elsewhere if they were not allowed to hold the Holi procession. The protest was led by district vice president of the Hindu Jagran Manch, Harpal Singh, along with former village headman Bhup Ram, Rameshwar Dayal, Tilok Ram, Kamlesh, Virendra, Omkar, and many women and other villagers. Despite assurances from the administration, the villagers remained firm in their demand. According to a news report by Patrika, Hindu villagers, including women, staged a protest in front of the CO office. A few protestors held pamphlets reading, “This house is for sale,” stating they were being forced to leave the village due to pressure from both the administration and the Muslim community. CO Harsh Modi, SDM Ajay Kumar Upadhyay, and Inspector Hafizganj made repeated efforts to persuade the villagers, but they refused to relent. They left the protest site, stating that they would escalate their complaint to the Chief Minister.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Administration disallows religious procession and the tertiary category chosen 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 highlights a clear instance of discrimination against Hindu religious expression, as the Hindu villagers of Duawawat were unjustly denied permission to conduct their Holi procession with a DJ, despite having organised similar processions in the past. The authorities dismissed the event as a "new tradition" and refused to grant approval, citing concerns over religious tensions. However, the villagers provided photographic and video evidence to demonstrate that the procession had taken place in previous years, making the administration’s refusal arbitrary and unjustified. This decision reflects a selective restriction on Hindu religious practices, raising concerns about bias in the enforcement of religious freedoms. The refusal to allow the procession was not a result of mutual agreement among different communities but was unilaterally imposed by the administration. This not only denied the Hindus their right to religious expression but also set a concerning precedent where Hindu festivals could be curtailed under vague pretexts while similar restrictions are rarely imposed on other religious groups. Such arbitrary actions taken against Hindus are prejudicial to the rights of Hindus and stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindu beliefs, which is why this case is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
