HOPE OF GLORY MINISTRY TRUST THR. HIS CHAIRMEN DILIP BHORE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SANGLI RURAL POLICE STATION, SANGLI
Constitutional Protection of Religious Assembly and the Requirement of Proportionality in Administrative Cancellation of Public Event Permissions.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:1762-DB
Decision Date: 14-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India (Articles 19, 21, 25, and 26); Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 223 and 3(5)); Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
- Facts: The Petitioner, a registered religious trust, organized the "Maharashtra Prayer Festival, 2026" scheduled from March 13 to March 15, 2026. After obtaining several permissions from the MIDC, Gram Panchayat, Municipal Corporation, and the local Police, the trust commenced the event with approximately 50,000 attendees. However, on March 14, 2026, at 02:00 a.m., the Police and MIDC abruptly cancelled the permissions, citing an FIR registered under the Black Magic Act. The authorities alleged that the event involved claims of miraculous healings (e.g., curing cancer and hernia through prayer), which purportedly promoted superstition. The Petitioner contended that the attendees were already receiving medical treatment and that prayer merely improved their mental confidence.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner moved the High Court of Bombay (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking urgent relief against the cancellation orders issued on March 13 and 14, 2026.
- Issue: Whether the abrupt cancellation of permissions for a religious event, in the absence of a law and order disturbance and based on allegations of violating the Black Magic Act, is legally valid or violates fundamental rights under the Constitution?
- Holding: Yes, the cancellation was illegal and mala fide. The Court quashed the cancellation orders and restored the original permissions.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the authorities acted in an "illegal and mala fide manner" by abruptly cancelling permissions in the middle of an ongoing event attended by 50,000 people. It noted that the State did not allege any disturbance to public order or communal harmony. The Court emphasized that Article 25 and 26 protect the freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion, while Article 21 ensures the right to live with dignity. Since the Petitioner was willing to provide an undertaking to not violate the Black Magic Act and consented to the appointment of a Vigilance Officer, the total prohibition of the event was disproportionate and violated the fundamental rights of the citizens gathered.
🔒 For Members Only