Puja pandals on public roads do not infringe the right to free movement so long as the road is not completely blocked, the Orissa High Court has held, directing the State to keep passage open for residents and emergency vehicles.
Cuttack: Declining to order any halt to temporary community festival structures, the Orissa High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation by a Khordha resident who said a pandal near his home blocked the road, holding that larger public interest outweighs individual inconvenience but that the Government must ensure adequate space for vehicles, ambulances and fire engines [Sarat Kumar Gajendra v. Collector & District Magistrate, Khordha and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo declined to issue a writ of mandamus. The Bench disposed of the petition with observations and directions on licensing, passage, sound limits and the size of temporary structures.
The petition
The petitioner, Sarat Kumar Gajendra, said his house stands about 50 metres from the spot where a pandal is put up for some days for Ganesh or Durga puja, and that the structure caused a complete blockade of the road, making his own house inaccessible. The Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha, and other State authorities were called on to respond when the petition was admitted.
The State’s affidavits said the pandals never blocked the road in its entirety and that a 22 feet passage was left for vehicles. The petitioner strongly disputed this. Several local residents who support the community festivals later sought to intervene, including relatives of the petitioner, as recorded by the Bench.
Background: pandals on public roads before the Court
The issue of puja structures on public roads has come before the Orissa High Court earlier in a separate suo motu matter, Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. State of Odisha and Others, concerning Cuttack city. In an order of September 26, 2024, a Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice V. Narasingh took note of bamboo structures being erected on public roads for Durga Puja, after which the Collector, Cuttack, assured the Court that teams would check illegal construction on public roads.
In 2025 the same matter directed the authorities to file an affidavit on whether puja committees take prior permission regarding the nature of pandals, the height of gates and safety measures. That proceeding relates to Cuttack. The Khordha petition decided now is a separate individual PIL.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Allows Railway Workers Union Durga Puja, Says Puja Is For Citizens
Individual interest versus larger public interest
The Chief Justice, writing for the Bench, began with Article 25 and the idea that public order, morality and health qualify the freedom to practise religion. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tarak Singh and Another v. Jyoti Basu and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 201, for the proposition that where private interest is set against public interest, the public interest must prevail. The Court said:
“There is no scintilla of doubt in our mind that if the fundamental right of a person is overlapping the fundamental rights of a large section of the society, the law respects the larger interest over an individual interest.”
The Bench noted that Durga Puja, Ganesh Puja and similar festivals are performed through gatherings of large numbers of people and are an integral part of culture and tradition, usually in a temporary manner by putting up pandals on the public road.
Free movement is not absolute
Acknowledging that the right to free movement flows from Article 19 and is also a facet of Article 21, the Court held that an individual cannot claim it is completely hindered where the State has granted the necessary permission or licence to hold such festivals in the larger public interest:
“Even if the pandals are constructed on a public place, there should be adequate space left for the movement of the vehicles or at least the movement of an ambulance and/or a fire engine in case of any emergency to avoid any public disorder or a disharmony into a large section of the society.”
On the factual dispute, the Bench observed that where facts are to be decided on an oath against oath basis, the Court should believe the statement that appears reasonable. It accepted the State’s affidavit that a 22 feet passage was left, while stressing that it is the State’s duty to ensure residents have access for ingress and egress. The Court said it did not feel there should be a complete stoppage of religious ceremonies on the plea that they obstruct movement of vehicles and access.
The directions
Noting that the Government has issued a guideline under the governing statute so that no person is denied access to their home and vehicles are not completely stopped, the Court found it was not a fit case for a writ of mandamus. It then laid down the following:
“While granting such license to a community in performing such religious festivals, the Government should ensure that there is no complete disruption in the movement of the vehicles nor the person should be denied a passage for ingress and egress. Adequate distance should be strictly adhered to, which makes the movement of the emergency vehicles, so that in case of any emergency, such facilities and/or amenities are available at their doorstep.”
The Government was also directed to maintain the permissible sound limit and the prescribed deadline for such festivals, and to ensure that temporary structures on public roads are of a measurement that does not eclipse the right of movement, leaving adequate space for vehicular movement. The Court added that it appreciated the “anguish and agony” shown by the petitioner in flagging the issue, which could not be brushed aside.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling states, in one place, the balance the Court expects between community festivals on public roads and the daily movement of residents: temporary pandals are permissible, but a total blockade is not, and emergency access is non-negotiable. It places the burden on licensing authorities to build these conditions into permissions.
For residents who object to road closures during festivals, the decision signals that a complaint will need to show complete obstruction, not just inconvenience, before a court will intervene by writ. At the same time, the directions on passage, sound limits and structure size give them a standard against which licensing compliance can be measured.
Case Title: Sarat Kumar Gajendra v. Collector & District Magistrate, Khordha and Others [W.P.(C) No. 26356 of 2025]
Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, Orissa High Court
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Petitioner in person, with Advocate Laxman Pradhan; Additional Government Advocate Debashis Tripathy for the State; Senior Advocate P.K. Ray for the Intervener