A personal deity lacking historical recognition has no automatic right to festival invitations or facilities.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu’s order dated 10 January 2025 rejecting its representation seeking an invitation and facilities at the Kullu Dussehra festival.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed the competent authority to decide the representation in light of an inquiry report recommending the petitioner’s registration with the Banjar Kardar Sangh.

The respondents did not specifically dispute the petitioner’s registration, but maintained that it was a personal or “gharelu” deity, lacked recorded historical recognition, and had separated from the original Devta Bansheera.

They also relied on space and financial constraints, and on the practice of inviting deities with historical significance and wide recognition.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s rejection of the petitioner’s representation seeking an invitation to the Kullu Dussehra festival was unlawful, notwithstanding the petitioner’s registration with the Kardar Sangh.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the same invitation and festival facilities as the deities invited by the Dussehra Festival Committee.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoked by the petitioner to seek judicial review of the Deputy Commissioner’s order.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited as governing the selection of deities for invitation.

The Court assessed the Committee’s practice by reference to tradition, historical significance, wide recognition, and logistical and financial constraints; it treated the Wajib-ul-Arz, as part of the revenue record, as relevant evidence of a deity’s historical background and associated customs.

The Court also considered the Kardar Sangh’s role in recommending deities for invitation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s deity was established after separating from the original Devta Bansheera, that the petitioner’s chariot was not historical, and that the petitioner had no mention in the applicable Wajib-ul-Arz.

It accepted the respondents’ position that invitations were guided by tradition and historical recognition, and that extending invitations to additional personal deities was constrained by available space and resources.

The petitioner had not shown that similarly situated deities lacking historical record or recognition had been invited and given equivalent facilities.

Registration with the Kardar Sangh, without the relevant historical recognition or recommendation, therefore did not establish an entitlement to an invitation or equal facilities.

It dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue any appropriate remedy in accordance with law; pending applications were also disposed of.