IMPORTANT POINT
Practice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 25 and 26-Right of Ananda Margis to perform Tandava dance in public-Claim of-In First Ananda Margi case [1983(4) SCC 522], Supreme Court held that Tandava dance in public is not an essential rite of Ananda Margi faith-Subsequently Ananda Murti Ji, founder of that order prescribed to perform Tandava dance in public as an essential religious practice in Carya, Carya, a book containing relevant doctrines-Based on this, Ananda Margis sought permission of Commissioner of Police to perform Tandava dance in public-Commissioner accorded permission to take out Tandava dance without knife, live snake, trident or skull-However, High Court held that taking out Tandava dance in public carrying skull, trident etc. is an essential part of Ananda Margi faith and Commissioner of Police could not impose conditions to it-Whether High Court is correct in it s finding-(No) (Majority Opinion).
       Majority Judgment (Rajendra Babu, J. for himself and on behalf of G.P. Mathur, J.]
       Held : This Court was categorical in it s judgment that Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of religious rites of 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 practice of dance is still more recent. 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. (Para 7)
       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 confined to 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 worship which 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 etc. of the given religion. (Paras 8 and 9)
       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 or practices the superstructure of religion is built. Without which, a religion will be no religion. Test to determine whether a part or practice is essential to the religion is - to find out whether the nature of religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part. There cannot 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 is what is protected by the Constitution. No body can say that 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 where the belief is based and religion is founded upon. It could only be treated as mere embellishments to the non-essential part or practices. Here in this case 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) Ananda Margi order was in existence. Therefore, Tandava dance is not the core upon which Ananda Margi order is founded. Had Tandava dance been the core of Ananda Margi faith, then without which Ananda Margi faith could not have existed. There is yet another difficulty in accepting the reasoning of the High Court that a subsequent addition in Carya Carya could constitute Tandava dance as 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 Court by making alteration in its doctrine (Paras 9 to 11)
       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. (Para 12)
       Per Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. [Dissenting Judgment]
       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. (Paras 75 & 76)
       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. Hence, to preserve public peace and to avoid damages to public properties and keeping this in mind the Anand Margis are permitted to go on procession and perform Tandva dance with symbolic skull, Trishul, knife, damroo, sword subject to the following terms and conditions:-
        1. The Commissioner of police may prescribe the route;
        2. REGULATION:
        (i) The participants to the procession shall not carry wooden bars, weapons, metal rods, weapons capable of inducing violence.
        (ii) Loud speakers shall not be used.
        (iii) Traffic regulations should be observed.
        (iv) Traffic should not be obstructed.
        (v) Normal activities of common man should not be disturbed.
        (vi) Objectionable slogans and illegal slogans or provocative slogans affecting others sentiments shall not be expressed or voiced.
        (vii) Processionists shall proceed in five persons row and shall keep one side of the road by keeping other side for transport.
        (viii) Crackers are prohibited
        (ix) They should not spray colour powders
       The instructions of police officers and other regulations as above should be followed." (Paras 86 to 89)

MAJORITY JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J. : [For G.P. Mathur, J. and for himself]-

This is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation question raised before this Court was whether performance of Tandava dance in public is an essential practice of Ananda Margi order or not. This Court in Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta & Others v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Another, (1983) 4 SCC 522, (First Ananda Margi case), held that Tandava dance in public is not an essential rite of Ananda Margi faith. Subsequent to the first case, it appears that Ananda Murti Ji - founder of that order prescribed to perform 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 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 herein before this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos 1317-18 of 1987. This Court with the following observation disposed it of:

"We are of the view that these cases should appropriately be examined by the High Court keeping in view that has been said by this Court in the Judgment in Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta & Others v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Another reported in (1984) 1 SCR 447. Petitioners are at liberty to go before High Court."

2. 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 Ananda Margi faith and Commissioner of Police could not impose conditions to it. This decision is now under challenge.

3. When this matter came up for consideration before this Court, a Bench of two learned Judges made an order on 13.11.1992 as follows:-

"After hearing the parties for sometime and having considered the decision of the three learned Judges of this Court in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta etc. vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Anr. [1984 (1) SCR. 447], we are of the view that this is a matter which requires consideration 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".

4. On 4.12.2001 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered this matter and noticed that (i) that the Bench does not express any difficulty in following the earlier judgment, (ii) that they do not set out any substantial question of law which requires the decision of a Constitution Bench since that order merely stated that the matter 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 the two learned Judges for final disposal who in their turn made a reference to a Bench of three Judges.

5. The relevant question herein for consideration is whether the High Court is correct in it s finding that Tandava dance is an essential and integral part of Ananda Margi faith based on the revised edition of Carya Carya. A bench consisting of three Judges of this Court in first Ananda Margi case arrived at a unanimous conclusion on facts that Tandava dance in public is not an essential and integral part of Ananda Margi faith. In order to arrive at this conclusion this Court inter alia took the following four aspects into account.

1. Shri. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar otherwise known as Shri Ananda Murti, founded a socio-spiritual organization 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.

2. Ananda Marga contains no dogmatic beliefs and teaches the yogic and spiritual s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 298

IMPORTANT POINTPractice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith.

Cases Referred (19)

IMPORTANT POINT
Practice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith.