What looked like a challenge to a ban on police at temple ceremonies resolved into a matter of clarification. The petitioner read the State Police Chief’s circular as prohibiting police participation in temple functions and attacked it as unconstitutional. The State’s affidavit narrowed the field considerably: the circular, it said, restricts only participation in religious rituals while in police uniform, save on official duty, and leaves untouched every policing function at festivals and the religious rights of every devotee. On that recorded stand, the High Court closed the petition, without pronouncing on the circular’s validity.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has closed a writ petition challenging a circular issued by the State Police Chief, which the petitioner contended prohibited police participation in temple ceremonies, after recording the State’s clarification that the circular restricts only participation in religious rituals while in police uniform, and does not curtail policing duties at religious events or the religious rights of any devotee or denomination [Dr. P.S. Mahendra Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar disposed of the petition by recording the relevant paragraphs of the State’s counter affidavit.
The challenge
The petitioner had challenged the circular of July 1, 2026 as arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 29 of the Constitution, reading it as a prohibition on police participation in temple ceremonies. The State Police Chief, the sixth respondent, filed a counter affidavit in response.
The State’s clarification
The decisive material was paragraph 4 of the State’s counter affidavit, which the Court extracted. In it, the State clarified that the direction does not prohibit the practice of any religion, interfere with the administration of any temple or religious institution, or curtail the religious rights guaranteed to any devotee or religious denomination. Police personnel, it stated, would continue to discharge all statutory duties connected with festivals and religious events, including the maintenance of law and order, crowd management, traffic regulation, security arrangements, escort duties and other policing functions, as well as functions the police have traditionally performed:
“The restriction is confined only to participation in religious rituals or ceremonies while wearing the official police uniform, except where such participation forms part of an official duty.”
The State also placed on record, in paragraph 9 of its affidavit, its reasons for issuing the circular: that the instruction had been issued in public interest and in the interest of maintaining discipline, uniformity, neutrality and the professional image of the police administration, and that the challenge to it was devoid of legal or factual merit.
The disposal
In view of the State’s recorded stand, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition could be closed after the affidavit’s contents were recorded. Accepting that course, the Court closed the petition by recording paragraphs 4 and 9 of the counter affidavit. It did not pronounce on the constitutional validity of the circular; the matter was resolved on the clarified scope of the direction rather than by any adjudication of the challenge.
ALSO READ: Respect Each Religion And Bring True Secularism: J&K High Court Justice Sanjeev Kumar
Why it matters
The case illustrates how a challenge framed against a widely-read prohibition can dissolve once the authority states, on affidavit, what the measure actually does. Much of the controversy around such a circular flows from how broadly it is read; a direction “prohibiting police participation in temple ceremonies” sounds sweeping, and invites objections under the religious-freedom guarantees of Articles 25 and 29 and the equality guarantee of Article 14. The State’s affidavit reframed the measure as a narrow one, addressed not to religion but to the wearing of the official uniform during religious rituals, and expressly preserving every policing function at festivals. Once that was recorded, the premise of the challenge fell away.
The distinction the State drew, between an individual’s freedom to practise religion and the conditions attaching to the use of a State uniform, is a familiar one in service jurisprudence. A restriction on how a public servant may appear or act while in official uniform is generally treated as a matter of service discipline and institutional neutrality rather than an interference with the personal right to worship, since the individual remains free to participate in religious rituals in a personal capacity, out of uniform. The State’s stated rationale, discipline, uniformity, neutrality and the professional image of the force, sits within that line of reasoning.
It should be noted what the Court did, and did not, decide. It did not rule on whether the circular is constitutionally valid, nor did it endorse the State’s reasons; it closed the petition by recording the State’s clarification of the circular’s limited scope, which is what satisfied the petitioner. The practical effect is that the circular stands, understood in the confined sense the State has now placed on the record, that policing at religious events continues unaffected, that no devotee’s or denomination’s rights are curtailed, and that the only restriction is on ritual participation in uniform, except where that participation is itself part of official duty. Should the circular be applied more expansively than that recorded understanding, the question of its validity would remain open for a future challenge.
Case Title: Dr. P.S. Mahendra Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(C) No. 24250 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:71501
Status: Writ petition closed by recording the State’s counter affidavit clarifying the circular’s limited scope; no ruling on the circular’s constitutional validity.