HC refuses ban on pandals on roads

Bhubaneswar: In a public interest litigation (PIL) ruling, the Orissa High Court refused to issue a blanket prohibition on erecting temporary religious pandals on public thoroughfares. A Division Bench held that the collective public interest inherent in religious festivities supersedes minor individual inconveniences.

However, the court balanced this religious freedom with public order by stipulating that such structures must not completely disrupt traffic flow, impede emergency services, or restrict residents’ access to their properties.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo disposed of a PIL filed by Sarat Kumar Gajendra, who challenged a temporary religious pandal erected 50 metres from his house for completely blocking access to his residence. Declining to impose a blanket ban on temporary pandals on public roads, the court held that community festivals are a vital part of cultural traditions and that individual inconvenience alone does not warrant stopping them. However, the bench emphasised that the right to practise religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health, and that such celebrations must not completely obstruct traffic, block home access, or impede emergency vehicles.

The court noted that the State had maintained in its affidavit that a 22-foot passage was being kept open at the site to facilitate vehicular movement. Finding no ground to issue a writ of mandamus, the bench declined to intervene against the conduct of the festivals. It, however, directed the authorities to ensure that permissions for temporary pandals are granted only with adequate space for vehicular movement and uninterrupted access to residents’ homes. Sufficient clearance must be maintained for emergency vehicles, including ambulances and fire engines. The court also directed the authorities to enforce prescribed sound limits and time restrictions and ensure that temporary structures on public roads do not unduly obstruct movement. Disposing of the PIL, the bench appreciated the petitioner for highlighting concerns over public access and safety, emphasising that religious celebrations must not result in complete disruption of traffic or denial of ingress and egress to residents.