The Kanwar Yatra: When Religious Freedom Becomes a License for Violence

The spectacle of violence during the Kanwar Yatra is a constitutional crisis in the making.

The Kanwariya who strikes out in anger has not only broken the law but has also broken the sacred vow of the pilgrimage itself.

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

The Kanwar Yatra stands as one of the most profound expressions of faith in the Hindu religious calendar, with millions of devotees—known as Kanwariyas—embarking on an annual pilgrimage during the sacred month of Shravan to collect holy Ganga water and perform Jalabhishek at Shiva temples.

The tradition, spanning at least four hundred years, represents the resilience and devotion of countless pilgrims who walk barefoot for hundreds of kilometres chanting "Har Har Mahadev."

However, in recent years, this sacred tradition has been increasingly marred by incidents of violence, intimidation, and public disorder that stand in stark contrast to its spiritual purpose. What was once a journey of prayer has become, for a growing number of participants, an occasion for the public display of power, exclusionary tactics, and brutality.

The acts of violence are not just criminal offences; they are a profound betrayal of the spiritual discipline that the Yatra is meant to inculcate. The Kanwariya who throws a stone or raises a fist in anger has forgotten that the journey is about cooling the anger of the divine, not fuelling their own.

Religious Freedom and Its Limits

The constitutional framework of India establishes a secular democracy where the freedom of religion is guaranteed as a fundamental right, but this freedom is not absolute. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.

However, this freedom is explicitly made "subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part." This constitutional limitation is not merely ornamental, it is a foundational principle that establishes the boundaries within which religious practice must operate in a pluralistic society.

The concept of "secularism" was added to the Preamble in 1976 to make explicit the constitutional vision of a state that is equidistant from all religions. The Supreme Court has consistently held that religion, as understood in the Indian Constitution, is a relation between an individual and God, and what is essential to retaining this relation should be allowed. This has led to the development of the "Essentiality Test" by the Indian judiciary to determine what is permitted under Article 25.

The Court has observed that communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion. Persons belonging to different religions must feel assured that they can live in peace with persons belonging to other religions.

The constitutional guarantee of freedom of movement and the right to conduct business, though not explicitly enumerated as fundamental rights in the same manner as religious freedom, are integral to the scheme of personal liberty under Article 21 and the freedom of trade and occupation under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has consistently reaffirmed that religious freedom cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines public order.

In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court rejected the argument that offences relating to religion bore no relation to the maintenance of public order, holding that a law creating a religious offence could indeed be said to have been enacted in the interests of public order.

The violence associated with the Kanwar Yatra raises serious questions about the state's obligation to maintain public order under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The recent trend of shutting down schools during the Yatra period, ostensibly to avoid disruption and potential confrontations, represents a capitulation to the demands of a mob and infringes upon the right to education. Attacks on eateries for serving non-vegetarian food, and the aggressive enforcement of "pure" vegetarian zones during the pilgrimage, constitute a gross violation of the fundamental rights of citizens to choose their livelihood and their diet.

The Supreme Court, in Association for Protection of civil rights (ACPR) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, stayed the directives by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand that eateries on the Kanwar Yatra route must display the owners' names, terming the move "contrary to constitutional and legal norms prevalent in our country" and observing that it "infringed the secular character of our Republic." 

The Court noted that the directive would affect the right to equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination on the basis of religion under Article 15(1), and the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17. The Court also observed that some employees of eateries had been terminated as a consequence of the directives, impacting their rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Recent Incidents of Violence: 2024-2026

The pattern of violence during the Kanwar Yatra has been consistently documented over recent years, with reports of hooliganism, vandalism, and assault becoming disturbingly frequent. In 2024, the Supreme Court was called upon to address the issue when a petition sought directions for a standard operating procedure for religious processions, with petitioners arguing that "these festivals are becoming a source of riots" and that "authorities are abdicating their duty entirely."

In Lucknow on August 3, 2026, a group of Kanwariyas riding motorcycles attacked and vandalised a school van carrying young students at Charak Chowk crossing. The incident occurred when the school van driver applied the brakes, causing one of the trailing motorcycles to hit the vehicle's rear-end. Following an argument, six Kanwariya men carrying kanwars struck the van, breaking its rear windshield and side mirrors while threatening the driver.

Though none of the children inside were physically injured, the attack left the young passengers traumatised. An FIR was registered under Sections 131 (assault or use of criminal force), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 324(4) (mischief causing damage) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. However, police initially refused to register the complaint and instead threatened to seize the school van for allegedly operating without proper documents. Parents alleged that the attack occurred in front of policemen who "kept mum and watched it" .

In Uttarakhand on 1 August, 2026, a major clash broke out when an Alto car collided with a pilgrim walking on foot, breaking his kanwar. A large crowd of Kanwariyas quickly gathered, pulled the driver out of his vehicle, and thrashed him severely before turning on the car itself. The driver, who was also a fellow Kanwariya returning home with Gangajal, suffered severe injuries. Police arrived later to defuse the situation and registered an FIR based on the driver's complaint.

In Muzaffarnagar on 16 July, 2026, a commercial pickup truck accidentally brushed against a kanwar carried by a pilgrim on foot. Enraged over the "compromise of the holy water," the crowd allegedly attacked the vehicle, smashing its windshield and bodywork. Police officials stationed along the route rushed to the spot, seized the damaged pickup truck, and cleared the highway. However, no arrests were made, and an inquiry was initiated.

In Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 6 August, 2026, two men allegedly taking part in the Kanwar Yatra sustained serious injuries after they were hit by a car and assaulted in an ensuing altercation. The incident sparked outrage among local Hindu organisations and relatives, who claimed the victims were Kanwariyas preparing for their pilgrimage to Haridwar. Senior police and district officials rushed to the spot to pacify the agitated crowd. A case was registered against unidentified individuals under relevant sections of the BNS.

The year 2025 also witnessed significant violence. In a widely circulated incident, a CRPF personnel was reportedly punched by a Kanwariya, an act of aggression against a uniformed security officer that underscores the brazenness and lawlessness characterising certain elements of the pilgrimage. Reports indicate that damage to infrastructure and public property, along with assaults on citizens, became a regular feature of the Yatra. The police reluctance and political affiliations have often emboldened such actors, with reports suggesting that police were instructed by senior officials to not take strict action against Kanwariyas.

Selective Enforcement of Law

The constitutional principle of equality before the law under Article 14 demands that all citizens be treated equally, regardless of their religious identity. However, the enforcement of law during the Kanwar Yatra reveals a troubling double standard. While Kanwariyas are allowed to occupy public roads, disrupt traffic, and commit acts of violence with impunity, members of other religious communities face immediate legal action for similar activities.

In Mangaluru, legal action was initiated against unidentified individuals for offering namaz on the street, with cases filed under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 283 (danger or obstruction in public way), and 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad strongly condemned the practice, calling it part of a "conspiracy to create unrest" and warning that if such practices continue, the organisation would conduct mass recitations of the Hanuman Chalisa at the same location.

In Delhi, a sub-inspector was seen kicking Muslims offering Friday prayers on a road in Inderlok area. The 34-second video that went viral led to the policeman's suspension, and a Delhi court called for a report on the incident. The policeman was seen "kicking and shoving people praying on the road, and even shouting and stepping on the prayer mats used by them”.

The contrast is stark, when minorities offer namaz on public roads, they face legal action, police brutality, and condemnation; when Kanwariyas occupy roads, disrupt traffic, and commit acts of violence, they are accommodated, protected, and even showered with flower petals from helicopters by government officials. 

Balancing Religious Rights with Individual Rights

The fundamental challenge posed by the Kanwar Yatra violence is the need to balance the collective right to religious practice with the individual rights of citizens who are not participants in the pilgrimage. Article 25 itself provides the framework for this balance: religious freedom is subject to public order, morality, and health.

The Supreme Court, in Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, observed that communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion.

The concept of "constitutional morality" requires that religious practices be exercised in harmony with the rights of others and the maintenance of public peace. As one academic analysis has argued, fundamental rights, including freedom of religion, can be seen as emerging elements of constitutional morality that must be balanced against cultural relativism concerns. The Indian Constitution offers an innovative solution to the perennial problem of balancing individual rights to religious freedom against the claims of community

The argument that religious processions must be accommodated because they are expressions of faith fails when those expressions result in violence, intimidation, and the violation of others' rights. While processions can use roads and exercise their rights to free speech, free movement, and peaceful assembly, any procession that prevents others from using public pathways or creates an unsafe atmosphere for citizens cannot be deemed a legitimate assertion of fundamental rights. Such processions must be effectively dealt with or curbed in entirety.

The constitutional framework does not permit one community's religious practice to become a burden or a threat to the safety and rights of others. The state has a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of laws under Article 14, to protect the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and to ensure that the religious freedom of one community does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others.

Equal Accountability for All

The Kanwar Yatra, at its heart, remains a journey of faith, a testament to the enduring power of belief and the human spirit's capacity for devotion. However, the sacred tradition is being tragically undermined by the violent actions of a few, who have lost sight of its spiritual purpose. The path of a pilgrim is meant to be one of humility, discipline, and reverence—not a license for aggression, intimidation, and the violation of others' rights. vn

The Constitution does not grant unbridled freedom to religious practices; Article 25 explicitly subjects religious freedom to public order, morality, and health. The Supreme Court has consistently held that religious practices must be exercised in harmony with the rights of others and the maintenance of public peace. The state has a constitutional duty under Article 14 to ensure equal protection of laws to all citizens, and under Article 21 to protect the right to life and personal liberty of every person.

The selective enforcement of laws, the release of accused pilgrims on bonds, the refusal to register FIRs against perpetrators, and the official showering of flower petals on violent mobs constitute a violation of these constitutional guarantees. When Muslims offering namaz on public roads are subjected to police brutality and legal action, while Kanwariyas occupying roads and committing violence are accommodated and protected, the constitutional principle of equality before the law is undermined.

Religious rights must be equalised with individual rights. The right to practice religion cannot be used as a shield for violence or as a justification for the violation of others' fundamental rights. Either all religious communities have equal rights to use public spaces for their religious practices, subject to the same conditions of public order and safety, or the state must enforce uniform rules for all. The spectacle of violence during the Kanwar Yatra is not only a law-and-order failure but a constitutional crisis in the making, where the rule of law is being subverted by the purported rule of faith.

It is time for the state to act with firmness and impartiality to protect the rights of all citizens, to uphold the rule of law, and to ensure that the Kanwar Yatra returns to being what it was always meant to be i.e. a spiritual journey of peace and devotion, not a vehicle for violence and communal discord.

The true test of a religion's strength lies not in the assertion of power over others but in the capacity for compassion and self-reflection. A secular India demands that all religions be treated equally, that all citizens be protected equally, and that the law apply equally to all—regardless of the religious identity of the perpetrator or the victim.

(The author is an advocate and legal consultant practicing at the Allahabad High Court, with experience in criminal, corporate, and tax litigation. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint does not endorse or is responsible for them.)