Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
In Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. of Police [(1983) 4 SCC 522] (the first Ananda
Margi case ), the question raised before the Supreme Court was “whether performance of Tandava
dance in public is an essential practice of the Ananda Margi order or not”. In that case, the court held
that “Tandava dance in public is not an essential rite of the Ananda Margi faith”. Subsequently,
Ananda Murtiji – the founder of that order prescribed the performance of Tandava dance in public as an
essential religious practice in Carya Carya, a book containing the relevant doctrines. Based on this,
Ananda Margis sought permission of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta to perform Tandava dance
in public. The Commissioner accorded permission to take out Tandava dance without knife, live snake,
trident or skull.This was challenged by the respondents before the Supreme Court by filing Writ
Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1317-18 of 1987, which were disposed of with the following observation:
“We are of the view that these cases should appropriately be examined by the High
Court keeping in view what has been said by this Court in the judgment in Acharya
Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. of Police. Petitioners are at liberty to go
before the High Court.”
S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. – Firstly, a Single Judge and subsequently a Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court arrived at the conclusion that taking out Tandava dance in public
carrying skull, trident, etc., is an essential part of the Ananda Margi faith and the
Commissioner of Police could not impose conditions to it. This decision is now under
challenge. Subsequent to this, when this matter came up for consideration before the Supreme
Court, a Bench of two learned Judges made an order on 13-11-1992 as follows:
“After hearing the parties for some time and having considered the decision of the three
learned Judges of this Court in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. of Police
we are of the view that this is a matter which requiresconsideration by a Constitution Bench
of this Court. Hence, we request the learned Chief Justice to constitute the Bench as early as
possible for hearing of the matter.”
On 4-12-2001 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered this matter and
noticed:
“(i) that the referring Bench did not express any difficulty in following the earlier
judgment, and (ii) that it did not set out any substantial question of law which required the
decision of a Constitution Bench since that order merely stated that thematter should be heard
and decided by a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench felt that in those circumstances
there was no justification for hearing the appeal by the
Constitution Bench and therefore placed the matter back before a two learned Judges
for final disposal who in their turn made a reference to a Bench of three Judges.”
The relevant question for consideration in this case is whether the High Court is correct in its
finding that Tandava dance is an essential and integral part of the Ananda Margi faith based
on the revised edition of Carya Carya. A Bench consisting of three Judges of this Court in the
first Ananda Margi case arrived at a unanimous conclusion on facts that Tandava dance in
public is not an essential and integral part of the Ananda Margi faith. In order to arrive at this
conclusion this Court inter alia took the following four aspects into account:
340
1 . Shri Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, otherwise known as Shri Ananda Murti, founded a sociospiritual organisation claimed to have been dedicated to the service of humanity in different
spheres of life such as physical, mental and spiritual, irrespective of caste, creed or colour, in
the year 1955.
- Ananda Marga contains no dogmatic beliefs and teaches yogic and spiritualscience to every
aspirant. - Tandava dance was not accepted as an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis in 1955
when that order was first established. It was introduced for the first time as a religious rite in
or around 1966. - Ananda Marga is a religious denomination of the Shaivite order, which is a well-known
segment of the Hindu religion. - After taking into account all the relevant facts, including the above, this Court held:
“Ananda Marga as a religious order is of recent origin and Tandava dance as a part of
religious rites of that order is still more recent. It is doubtful as to whether in such
circumstances Tandava dance can be taken as an essential religious rite of the Ananda
Margis . Even conceding that is so, it is difficult toaccept Mr Tarkunde’s argument that taking
out religious processions with Tandava dance is an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis.
On the basis of theliterature of the Ananda Marga denomination it has been contended that
there is prescription of the performance of Tandava dance by every follower of Ananda
Marga. Even conceding that Tandava dance has been prescribed as a religious rite for every
follower of the Ananda Marga it does not follow as a necessary corollary that Tandava dance
to be performed in public is a matter of religious rite.” (emphasis supplied) - By the above finding this Court was categorical in its judgment that Tandava dance in
public is not an essential part of religious rites of the Ananda Margi faith. The conclusion
arrived at by this Court regarding the non-essential nature of Tandava dance to Ananda Margi
faith was principally based on the fact that the order itself is of recent origin and the
practiceof the said dance is still more recent. The Court even went to the extent of assuming
that Tandava dance was prescribed as a rite and then arrived at the conclusion that taking out
Tandava dance in public is not essential to Ananda Margi faith. After arriving at the
aboveratio, the Court further added that:
“In fact, there is no justification in any of the writings of Shri Ananda Murti that Tandava
dance must be performed in public. At least none could be shown to us by Mr Tarkunde
despite an enquiry by us in that behalf.” (emphasis in original) - This observation cannot be considered as a clue to reopen the whole finding. Bymaking
that observation the Court was only buttressing the finding that was already arrived at. The
learned Judges of the High Court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the finding of
this Court regarding the non-essential nature of Tandava dance to the Ananda Margi faith is
due to the non-availability of any literature or prescriptions by the founder. The High Court is
under the wrong impression that an essential part of religion could be altered at any
subsequent point of time. - The protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not confinedto
matters of doctrine or belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore,
contains a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worshipwhich are
essential or integral part of religion. What constitutes an integral or essential part of religion
has to be determined with reference to its doctrines, practices, tenets, historical background,
341
etc. of the given religion. What is meant by “an essential part or practices of a religion” is
now the matter for elucidation. Essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which
a religion is founded. Essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow
a religious belief. It is upon the cornerstone of essential parts orpractices that the
superstructure of a religion is built, without which a religion will be noreligion. Test to
determine whether a part or practice is essential to a religion is to find out whether the nature
of the religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the takingaway of that part or
practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of thatreligion or in its belief,
then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part. Therecannot be additions or
subtractions to such part because it is the very essence of that religion and alterations will
change its fundamental character. It is such permanent essential parts which are protected by
the Constitution. Nobody can say that an essential part or practice of one’s religion has
changed from a particular date or by an event. Such alterable parts or practices are definitely
not the “core” of religion whereupon the belief is based and religion is founded upon. They
could only be treated as mere embellishments to the non-essential (sic essential) part or
practices. - Here in this case the Ananda Margi order was founded in 1955. Admittedly, Tandava
dance was introduced as a practice in 1966. Even without the practice of Tandava dance
(between 1955 to 1966) the Ananda Margi order was in existence. Therefore, Tandava dance
is not the “core” upon which the Ananda Margi order is founded. Had Tandava dance been
the core of Ananda Margi faith, then without it Ananda Margi faith could not have existed. - There is yet another difficulty in accepting the reasoning of the High Court that
asubsequent addition in Carya Carya could constitute Tandava dance as an essential part of
Ananda Margi faith. In a given case it is for the court to decide whether a part or practice is
an essential part or practice of a given religion. As a matter of fact if in the earlier litigations
the court arrives at a conclusion of fact regarding the essential part or practice of a religion –
it will create problematic situations if the religion is allowed to circumvent the decision of the
court by making alteration in its doctrine. For example, in N. Adithayan v. Travancore
Devaswom Board [(2002) 8 SCC 106] this Court found that a non-Brahmin could be
appointed as a poojari (priest) in a particular temple and it is not essential to that temple
practice to appoint only a Brahmin as poojari . Is it open for those temple authorities to
subsequently decide that only Brahmins could be appointed as poojaris by way of some
alterations in the relevant doctrines? We are clear that no party could ever revisit such a
finding of fact. Such an attempt will result in anomalous situations and could only be treated
as a circuitous way to overcome the finding of a court. If subsequent alterations in doctrine
could be allowed to create new essentials, the judicial process will then be reduced to a
useless formality and futile exercise. Once there is a finding of fact by the competent court,
then all other bodies are estopped from revisiting that conclusion. On this count also the
decision of the High Court is liable to be set aside. - In the result, we respectfully adopt the finding of this Court in the first Ananda Margi
case and allow the instant appeal. Since we find that practice of Tandava dance in public is
not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith, there is no need to look into any other arguments
advanced before us. The order in the writ petition as affirmed by the Division Bench is set
aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
342
AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. (Dissenting) –
As noticed earlier, the dispute started in the year 1979 between the Police Authorities – the
appellants herein and the respondents’ organisation and the matter was pending before one
forum or the other for all these years and has now been placed before this Bench for final
hearing and for resolution of the long standing dispute between the parties.
This Court, in its earlier judgment, took note of the fact that the practice was a recent one. No
finding, however, was arrived at by this Court that by reason of the recentness of the practice,
the same could not form part of religion or be a matter of religion. This Court, finally rested
its finding on the fact that the Ananda Margis had not been able to show from any of their
religious literature that the Tandava dance was to be performed in public. In fact, this Court
has also recorded that the counsel for the Ananda Margis had been asked by the Court to
produce any literature in this regard but this could not be done.
As far as the recentness of the practice is concerned, it has been submitted by Mr.
Andhyarujina that the Tandava dance has been closely associated with Hinduism from time
immemorial and in support of this argument he relied upon several authorities and that the
Hindus in general have always believed in dance as a form of worship vide “Nataraja in Art,
Thought and Literature” by C. Sivaramamurti. He would further submit that Ananda Murtiji
was considered by the Ananda Margis as their religious preceptor or guru and any direction
given by him was a mandate which could not be disobeyed. Therefore, the rites and rituals
which would be prescribed by Ananda Murtiji would form an integral part of their religion as
Ananda Murtiji was alive till recently, necessarily such directives could continue to be given
until his death.
I am of the opinion that there is merit and substance in the contention of learned senior
counsel. Although the specific introduction of Tandava dance in public procession may have
been recent, this does not detract from the fact that the Tandava dance is part of the religion
of the Ananda Margis. In any religion, practices may be introduced according to the decisions
of the spiritual Head. If these practices are accepted by the followers of such spiritual Head as
a method of achieving their spiritual upliftment, the fact that such practice was recently
introduced cannot make it anytheless a matter of religion.
It is to be noticed that since 1986 Ananda Murtiji has specifically directed the performance of
the Tandava dance in public procession on special occasions. This directive is contained in
the revised version of the Carya Carya. It was placed before us at the time of hearing. In fact,
this writing was not produced before this Court during the hearing of the earlier writ
proceedings and that this Court had no occasion to consider the same. In our view, the
performance of Tandava dance in public procession forms part of the Ananda Margis religion
and is also a matter of religion within the meaning of those articles and that the Ananda
Margis cannot be deprived of their right to practice their religion in the manner prescribed by
their religious preceptor, except on the grounds of public order, morality and health. It is not
the case of the appellants that the permission for the performance of Tandava dance in public
procession has been forbidden on the ground of health. Granting to have the permission has
343
been refused on the ground of public order and morality. However, in the orders by which the
permission had been refused, the Police Authorities have refused permission in terms of the
order of this Court. This Court had never directed the said authorities not to accede to the
performance of the Tandava dance in public procession. It was, therefore, wrong for the State
Authorities to refuse permission purportedly in terms of this Court’s orders. A close scrutiny
of the order refusing permission do not contain any reference to public order or morality.
However, the appellants, at the time of hearing of this appeal, tried to improve their case by
affidavits which cannot at all be permitted. The reason justifying refusal of permission should
have appeared in the order refusing permission itself. The only reason given was this Court’s
order. These reasons cannot now be modified or supplemented by way of an affidavit in the
proceedings as held by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner [AIR 1978 SC 851.
If the conscience of a particular community has treated a particular practice as an integral or
essential part of religion, the same is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, Anand Margis have right to take a procession in public places after
obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and they are also entitled to
carry Trishul or Trident, Conch or Skull so long as such procession is peaceful and does not
offend the religious sentiments of other people who equally enjoy fundamental right to
exercise their religious freedom. An Anand Margi is entitled to transmit or spread religion by
taking out procession in public places and also carry Trishul, Conch or Skull. However, any
religious right is subject to public order. The State has got ample powers to regulate the
secular activities associated with religious practices. Religious activities are protected under
Article 25 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, such religious freedom is subject to health
and subject to laws made for social welfare. Every person has got right to follow, practice and
propagate his religion. The Commissioner has got power to regulate assemblies, meetings and
processions in public places, etc. It specifically provides that he is entitled to prescribe the
routes by which and the times at which such processions may pass, in order to keep the public
places and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such assemblies, meetings and processions
and in the neighbourhood of places of worship during the time of public worship.
Ananda Marga had already been declared as a religious denomination by this Court vide
judgment dated 20.10.1983 as reported in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta etc.’s case
(supra) at para 9 wherein it has been observed as under: “….Ananda Marga appears to satisfy
all the three conditions, viz., it is a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs
which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being; they have a common
organisation and the collection of these individuals has a distinctive name, Ananda Marga,
therefore, can be appropriately treated as a religious denomination within the Hindu
religion…”
It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Ananda Marga which has been declared as
a religion by this Court has been discriminated and singled out by the West Bengal
Government for its ideological differences as its philosophy is based on spirituality.
344
If one religious denomination is allowed to carry its religious practice but another religious
denomination is restrained from carrying on religious practice and almost similar religious
practices, the same makes out a clear case of discrimination in violation of the principles of
Article 14 of the Constitution. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the respondents
that in the procession of the followers of Ananda Margis, each one of them will not carry the
skull and trident or knives of the aforesaid size, but only 5 to 6 members in a procession of at
least 1,000 members would carry the skull and the trident and/or knives to perform the
Tandava Dance which will be of a very limited duration, may be of 1 or 2 minutes. Such
performance is likely to be repeated at the interval of say one mile and the said performance
is not a continuous one. Such performance cannot by any stretch of imagination cause public
annoyance or disturbance of the public law and order situation and therefore, there is no
reason for the respondents to deny permission to the members of Ananda Margis to perform
such Tandava Dance in public inasmuch as the said dance is one of the most fundamental
aspects of the religious practice which the Ananda Margis are bound to perform as per the
directions of their Living Guru.
The tenets of the Ananda Margi are both oral and written as in the case of many religions.
The fact that there were no writings shown to the Court that Tandava dance is to be
performed in public, did not negative the existence of such precepts by the Anand Murthiji.
As in the case of many religious any of the Anand Murthiji’s precepts are a matter of oral
prescriptions. However, in the 1986 edition of Carya Carya specific mention was made by
Anand Murthiji of the requirement of Tandava dance in procession on special functions and
festivals.
I shall now consider whether Ananda Margis have the fundamental right under Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The Anand Margi are a religious denomination and as such are entitled to the protection
under Articles 25 and 26(b) of the Constitution for their beliefs and practices including their
practice of Tandava dance in a procession or public place.
The exercise of the freedom to act and practice in pursuance of religious beliefs is as much
important as the freedom of believing in a religion. In fact to persons believing in religious
faith, there are some forms of practicing the religion by outward actions which are as much
part of religion is the faith itself. The freedom to act and practice can be subject to
regulations. In our Constitution subject to public order health and morality and to other
provisions in Part III of the Constitution. However, in every case the power of regulation
must be so exercised with the consciousness that the subject of regulation is a fundamental
right of religion, and as not to unduly infringe the protection given by the Constitution.
Further in the exercise of the power to regulate, the authorities cannot sit in judgment over the
professed views of the adherents of the religion and to determine whether the practice is
warranted by the religion or not. That is not their function ( See Jesse Cantwell vs. State of
Connecticut (1939 84 L.Ed. 1213-1218, United States vs. Ballard, 1943 88 L.Ed. 1148, 1153,
1154).
345
I shall now consider the right of the Ananda Margis to religious procession. In Parthasaradi
Ayyangar & Ors. vs. Chinakrishna Ayyangar, ILR 5 Madras 304 Turner C.J. said, “In India,
person of whatever sect are entitled to conduct religious procession through public streets so
long as they do not interfere with the ordinary use of such streets by the public and subject to
such directions as the Magistrates may lawfully give to prevent obstruction of thorough fare
or breaches of public peace.””The power to suspend is extraordinary and the Magistrate
should resort to it only when he is satisfied that other powers are insufficient. This authority
of the Magistrate should be exercised in defence of rights rather than in their suspension.”
These observations were quoted with approval by this Court in Ghulam Abbas vs. State of
U.P. 1982 (1) SCR 1077 at 1130-1133. It was observed that the authorities should not in face
of such religion rights prohibit religious procession on the “facile ground of public peace and
tranquillity” but adopt a positive approach to protect fundamental rights under Articles 25 and
26 of the Constitution. Moreover “public order” has a larger connotation than “law and
order”. Contravention of law to effect public order must affect the community or the public at
large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not one which affects
“public order”. (See R.M. Lohia vs. State of Bihar,(supra)). Similar processions by other
communities even with use of swords e.g. Sikhs, Muslims and Bharat Sevashram Sanghs
have been permitted by the Commissioner of Police.
The Police Commissioner answers the charge of discrimination by stating that “activities of
Anand Margis cannot come within the scope of religious functions or practices as compared
to well established practices festival of Muslims and Sikhs”. It is not for the Police
Commissioner to give his disapproval to practice of a particular sect which are in his opinion
not well established. To allow any authority to judge the truth or falsity of a religious belief or
practice is to destroy the guarantee of religious freedom in the Constitution(see US vs.
Ballard, 88 L.Ed.1148).
The full concept and scope of religious freedom is that there are no restraints upon the free
exercise of religion according to the dictates of one’s conscience or upon the right freely to
profess, practice and propagate religion save those imposed under the police power of the
State and the other provisions of Part II of the Constitution. This means the right to worship
God according to the dictates of one’s conscience. Man’s relation to his God is made no
concern for the State. Freedom of conscience and religious belief cannot, however, be, set up
to avoid those duties which every citizen owes to the nation; e.g. to receive military training,
to take an oath expressing willingness to perform military service and so on.
Though the freedom of conscience and religious belief are absolute, the right to act in
exercise of a man’s freedom of conscience and freedom of religion cannot override public
interest and morals of the society and in that view it is competent for the state to suppress
such religious activity which are prejudicial to public interest. That apart, any activity in
furtherance of religious belief must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country. It must
be remembered crime will not become less odious because sanctioned by what a particular
sect may designate as religious. Thus polygamy or bigamy may be prohibited or made a
ground of disqualification for the exercise of political rights, notwithstanding the fact that is
in accordance with the creed of a religious body.
346
The liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, even in innocent matters, must yield to the
common good. In other words, the police power of the State is founded on the theory that
when there is conflict between the rights of individual and the interest of the society, the
interest of the society must prevail. In an organized society there cannot be any individual
right which is injurious to the community as a whole. At the same time, the police power is
not absolute and must not be arbitrary or oppressive. In other words, the police power must be
exercised for preservation of the community from injury. What our Constitution attempts to
do is to strike a balance between individual liberty and social control. There are two limbs to
religions freedom contained in Article 25. While one limb guarantees the right the other limb
incorporates restrictions on the exercise of the right so that they may not conflict with public
welfare or morality.
It would be pertinent to mention that the Sikh Community carry “Kirpans” as a symbol of
their religious practice and the Gurkhas the “Kukris” or “Dagger”. So also, the Hindus are
permitted to carry the idol of “Ganesa” in procession before immersion in the sea during
Vinayaka Chaturti Celebrations. Persons professing Islamic Faith are allowed to take out
procession during “Moharrum” Festival and persons participating in such processions beat
their chest with hands and chains and inflict injuries on them and the same has been permitted
as a religious practice of that community. Each deity presides over a certain function, has a
certain consort, uses a particular vehicle, giving them a concrete aspect that appeals to less
spiritually sophisticated lay people. All these insignia have a deep philosophical symbolism.
What might interest us presently is that all these vehicles are mostly drawn from the world of
animals, birds, and even reptiles. For example, Brahma has a swan, Vishnu has a garuda, a
type of eagle, Siva rides a bull, Ganesa a mouse, Subrahmanya a peacock, and so on. The idea
is only to emphasize the kinship with animals. Trees have the divinity Vanadevata. War is
presided over by the Goddess Chamundi riding a lion. Sound has a divinity, the
Nadabrahmam. The Goddess Saraswathi presides over music and arts. Lakshmi sitting on a
lotus deals with wealth. Parvathi, the consort of Siva, rules the entire Nature. All these
divinities serve to consecrate every aspect of daily life. The whole pantheon serves to
emphasize the one ultimate Reality.
Reading and reciting old scriptures, for instance, Ramayana or Quran or Bible or Gurur
Granth Sahib is as much a part of religion as offering food to deity by a Hindu or bathing the
idol or dressing him and going to a temple, mosque, church or gurudwara…
The authorities concerned can step in and take preventive measures in the interest of
maintenance of Law and Order if such religious processions disturb Law and Order. It has to
be held that the right to carry Trishul, Conch or Skull is an integral and essential part of
religious practice and the same is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
However, the same is subject to the right of the State to interfere with the said practice of
carrying Trishul, Conch or Skull if such procession creates Law and Order problems requiring
intervention of concerned authorities who are entrusted with the duty of maintaining Law and
Order.
347
What is Religion. Religion is a social system in the name of God laying down the Code of
Conduct for the people in Society. Religion is a way of life in India and it is an unending
discovery into unknown world. People living in Society have to follow some sort of religion.
It is a social Institution and Society accepts religion in a form which it can easily practice.
George Barnard Shaw stated, “There is nothing that people do not believe if only it be
presented to them as Science and nothing they will not disbelieve if it is presented to them as
Religion.” Essentially, Religion is based on “Faith”. Some critics say that Religion interfered
with Science and Faith. They say that religion led to the growth of blind faith, magic, sorcery,
human sacrifices etc. No doubt, history of religion shows some indications in this direction
but both Science and Religion believe in faith. Faith in Religion influences the temperament
and attitude of the thinker. Ancient civilization viz., the Indus Valley Civilization shows faith
of people in Siva and Sakthi. The period of Indus Valley Civilization was fundamental
religion and was as old as at least Ehyptian and Mesapetomiah Cultute. People worship Siva
and the Trishul (Trident), the emblem of Siva which was engraved on several seals. People
also worshipped stones, trees, animals and Fire. Besides, worship of stones, trees, animals etc.
by the primitive religious tribes shows that animism viz., worship of trees, stones, animals
was practiced on the strong belief that they were abodes of spirits, good or evil. Modern
Hinduism is to some extent includes Indus Valley Civilization Culture and religious faith.
Lord Siva is worshipped in the form of Linga. Many symbols have been used in Hindu
Literature. Different kinds of symbols and images have different sanctity. Brading of chest,
arms and other parts of body represent to the weapons of symbols of Siva. Modern Hinduism
has adopted and assimilated various religious beliefs of primitive tribes and people. The
process of worship has undergone various changes from time to time.
The expression of `RELIGION ‘ has not been defined in the Constitution and it is incapable of
specific and precise definition. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every
person, freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. No
doubt, this right is subject to public order related to health and morality and other provisions
relating to Fundamental Right. Religion includes worship, faith and extends to even rituals.
Belief in religion is belief of practice a particular faith, to preach and to profess it. Mode of
worship is integral part of religion. Forms and observances of religion may extend to matters
of Food and Dress. An act done in furtherance to religion is protected. A person believing in a
particular religion has to express his belief in such acts which he thinks proper and to
propagate his religion. It is settled law that protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India extend guarantee for rituals and rituals and observances, ceremonies and
modes of worship which form part and parcel of religion. Practice becomes part of religion
only if such practice is found to be essential and integral part. It is only those practices which
are integral part of religion that are protected. What would constitute an essential part of
religion or religious practice is to be determined with reference to the Doctrine of a particular
religion which includes practices which are regarded by the Community as part and parcel of
that religion. Test has to be applied by Courts whether a particular religious practice is
regarded by the community practicing that particular practice is integral part of the religion or
not. It is also necessary to decide whether the particular practice is religious in character or
not and whether the same can be regarded as an integral or essential part of religion which has
to be decided based on evidence.
348
It is not uncommon to find that those delve deep into scriptures to ascertain the character and
status of a particular practice. It has been authoritatively laid down that Cow Sacrifice is not
an obligatory over-act for a Muslim to exhibit his religious belief. No Fundamental Right can
be claimed to insist on slaughter of a healthy cow on a Bakrid Day. Performance of
“Sharadha” and offering of “Pinda” to ancestors are held to be an integral part of Hindu
Religion and religious practice. Carrying “Trishul” or “Trident” and “skull” by a few in a
procession to be taken out by a particular community following a particular religion is by
itself an integral part of religion. When persons following a particular religion carry Trishul,
Conch or Skull in a procession, they merely practice which is part of their religion which they
wanted to propagate by carrying symbols of their religions such as Trishul, Conch etc. If the
conscience of a particular community has treated a particular practice as an integral or
essential part of religion, the same is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, Anand Margis have right to take a procession in public places after
obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and they are also entitled to
carry Trishul or Trident, Conch or Skull so long as such procession is peaceful and does not
offend the religious sentiments of other people who equally enjoy fundamental right to
exercise their religious freedom. An Anand Margi is entitled to transmit or spread religion by
taking out procession in public places and also carry Trishul, Conch or Skull. However, any
religious right is subject to public order. The State has got ample powers to regulate the
secular activities associated with religious practices. Religious activities are protected under
Article 25 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, such religious freedom is subject to health
and subject to laws made for social welfare. Every person has got right to follow, practice and
propagate his religion. The Commissioner has got power to regulate assemblies, meetings and
processions in public places, etc. It specifically provides that he is entitled to prescribe the
routes by which and the times at which such processions may pass, in order to keep the public
places and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such assemblies, meetings and processions
and in the neighbourhood of places of worship during the time of public worship.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellants has no
merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
