Citation: 1984 AIR 512
Case Type: Writ Petition
Case No: 6890/82
Petitioner: ACHARYA JAGDISHWARANAND AVADHUTA
Respondents: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA
Decided On: 20-10-1983
Statues Referred: Constitution of India
Case Referred:
- Sastri Yagnapurushadji & Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya & Anr
- The Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. v, Syed Hussain Ali & Ors
Bench: Misra Rangnath, Bhagwati P.N., Sen, Amarendra Nath (J)
Facts:
The Respondent was alleged of issuing repetitively order U/S 144 Code of Criminal Proedure,1973. The order directed that no member of procession or assembly of five or more person should carry any weapon eligible to create offence and disturb public order.
A writ petition was filled in the High Court of Calcutta to direct the respondent to not to issue such restraints upon the followers of Ananda Marga. The High Court however dismissed the writ petition.
The followers of Ananda Marga made an application to the respondent to allow them to take out a procession in public streets along with tandava dance . The application was rejected. Where after the petitioner applied for a writ petition U/A 32 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondent to allow such procession along with tandava dance.
The petitioner contented that Tandava Dance was an essential part of the religious rites of Ananda Margis which they were entitled to practise in public and in private as guaranteed by the Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The respondents order breached the provision of the said Article.
The repetitive order issued by the respondent U/S 144 Code of Criminal Proedure,1973 was never the contemplated by the Code, and hence was an abuse of the law.
Issue:
Whether Ananda Marga is a religion or denomination
Whether Tandava Dance could be regarded as an essential religious rite
Whether order issued U/S 144 of CrPc on a repetitive basis was valid.
Obiter dicta:
The Court was in term with the observation of CJ. Gajendragadkar in Sastri Yagnapurushadji & Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya & Anr: ” Even a cursory study of the growth and development of Hindu religion through the ages shows that whenever a saint or a religious reformer attempted the task of reforming Hindu religion and fighting irrational or corrupt practices which had crept into it, a sect was born which was governed by its own tenets, but of 13 basically subscribed to the fundamental notions of Hindu religion and Hindu philosophy”.
Ratio decedendi:
Hon’ble Court held that the Ananda Margi was not a institutionalised religion but a religious denomination. The principle laid down by Gajendragadkar C.J. in Sastri Yagnapurushadji & Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya & Anr. held that whenever a religious saint or reformer tried to reform hindu religion to fight against irrational and corrupt practices, a sect was born which was governed by its own tenets, but basically ascribed to the fundamental notion of Hindu religion and philosophy. Based upon the above principle the court regarded the Ananda Margi as not being a separate religion.
A religion denomination must satisfy thee condition:
1. It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith.
2. Common organisation
3. Designation by a distinct name.
Ananda Marga appears to satisfy all the three conditions, therefore can be appropriately treated as a religious denomination, within the Hindu religion.
The tandava dance was not practiced as an essential religious rite of Ananda Margi in 1955 when it was first established by Ananda Murti. The tandava dance was made a part of their religious rite in 1966. Hence in such circumstances the Court held that it was doubtful that it could accept Tandava dance as an essential religious rite.
Even if Tandava dance could be regarded as an essential religious rite, it does not follow as a necessary corollary that Tandava dance to be performed in the public in a religious procession. In fact, there is no justification in any of the writings of Shri Ananda Murti that Tandava dance must be performed in public.
Therefore, performance of Tandava dance in procession in the public streets or in gatherings in public places is not an essential religious rite of the followers of the Ananda Marga. Thus, the Claim that the petitioner has a fundamental right within the meaning of Arts. 25 or 26 to perform Tandava dance in public streets and public places has to be rejected.
Under Sectin 144(4) of CrPc the order can remain valid for two months from the date of making it. But the State Government may by order upon specified circumstances may extend it upto six months. It is clearly indicative of the intent of the parliament that the life of the order U/S 144 of CrPc can be at max six months.
The Code does not contemplate repetitive order. And therefore if repetitive order were issued then it shall amount to abuse of law. Therefore order U/S 144 of CrPc is not intended to be permanent or semi-permanent in nature.
Judgment:
The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Misra Rangnath, Bhagwati P.N., Sen, Amarendra Nath (J). held the following:
The Ananda Margi was regarded as not having a separate religion.
Tandava Dance being practiced for short of period of time was held to be not an essential rite of the Ananda Margis. The right to practise and profess once belief as provided by the constitution should be regarded as an absolute right. If it is against public order it shall be regarded as void.
Order U/S 144 of Code of Criminal Proedure,1973 was never intended by the Parliament to be of permanent character or semi-permanent. They are ought to be of temporary in nature. Extending the time period of such order would result in violation of rights of people and would result in using it as a tool of suppression.
The writ petition was dismissed without cost.
Conclusion:
Protecting the religious sentiments of the citizen of India is also the primordial task of the Supreme Court. But protecting such rights does not mean to allow religious groups to engage in rites or ceremony which shall disturb the public order. Maintain public order is also essential for any civilised society.
This public policy has been evenly upheld by the court in the instant case. Not allowing the Ananda Margis to take out procession involving Tandava dance which could disturb the tranquillity of society. Also the court brought the executive authority under check that they cannot misuse the power granted by the noble Constitution.
Kaushal Agarwal.