A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of J. G. Chandrasekharan interpreted Article 25 of the Indian Constitution which provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, and held that it is not possible to put a blanket ban on the conduct of religious meetings, however, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in favor of the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
Brief Facts:
A writ petition of Mandamus was filed under Article 266 of the Indian Constitution for calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.01.2023 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as null and void. Consequently, the court permitted the petitioner to conduct the State Conference of Indu Makkal Katchi – Tamizhagam on 29.01.2023, along with adequate police protection.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Petitioner contended that the petitioner is ready to file an affidavit undertaking that participants in the conference will not indulge in any activities that will endanger the peace and harmony of the religion.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State submitted that there was a strong likelihood that conference attendees who identified as Sanyasis, Dharmakarthas, or devout Hindus would disparage other religions because of their presence. Further, it was contended that the District Superintendent had denied permission because the group had yet to specify how many people would be taking part or the procession's anticipated path. It was also highlighted that since people of all religions lived in the District, allowing a conference and procession would cause law and order issues, upsetting the harmony in the community.
The State also argued that there was a chance that anti-social individuals might try to enter the meetings after the PFI ban and disrupt the public area. Additionally, the procession would result in significant traffic backups, which would be problematic for adjacent hospital patients and school-age children. The State also relied on a government order that forbade religious procession in an area primarily populated by adherents of other religions.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that Article 25 of the constitution provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. Thus, a total ban cannot be imposed on the conduct of religious meetings. Therefore, the court allowed the conduction of the meeting.
However, considering the possibility of traffic hazards and anti-social elements infiltrating the procession, thus leading to a disturbance of law and order, the court directed the participants not to sing songs or speak ill of any caste, individual, or religion. Thus, it imposed reasonable restrictions in favor of the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
Decision:
The court allowed the plea to conduct the state conference along with specific directions.
Case Title: R.S. Deva Alias Kamadevan v The Home Secretary & Ors.
Coram: Justice J. G. Chandrasekharan
Case No: W.P.No.1871 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.1975 of 2023
Advocates for Petitioner: Ms S. Mayilnathan
Advocate for Respondent: Mr S. Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Read Order ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments