November 7, 2024
Constitutional law 2DU LLBSemester 4

Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta(2004) 12 SCC 770[S Rajendra Babu, Dr AR Lakshmanan and GP Mathur, JJ]

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.

  1. Ananda Marga contains no dogmatic beliefs and teaches yogic and spiritualscience to every
    aspirant.
  2. 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.
  3. Ananda Marga is a religious denomination of the Shaivite order, which is a well-known
    segment of the Hindu religion.
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Related posts

P seetharamayya V G Mahalakshmma AIR 1958 AP 103

Dharamvir S Bainda

Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh 2007 Case Analysis

Dhruv Nailwal

UNIT 2: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONIndian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996SC 1446

vikash Kumar

Leave a Comment