Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
M K George & Ors – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors – Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No 446 of 2018 WITH Writ Petition (Civil) No 796 of 2018
Decided On : 19-11-2019
For the Petitioner(s):V. Giri, Adolf Mathew, Peter K. Alias, Roy Issaic, Sanjay Jain, P. V. Yogeswaran, A. Raghunath, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Jaideep Gupta, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, C.U. Singh, Krishnan Venugopal, EMS Anam, Manoj V. George, Kamlendra Mishra, Shilpa Liza George, Advocates
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of fundamental rights related to religious freedom and worship under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the context of funeral services.
Headnote:
Article 32 - Religious Freedom - Article 25, Article 26 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India and their application to the religious customs and practices of the petitioners. The court also referred to previous decisions in K.S. Varghese and Others vs. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others (2017) 15 SCC 333 and Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) and Another vs. M. Pappy (Dead) and Another (2018) 9 SCC 672, which influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought various reliefs related to the enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India, particularly regarding religious customs and practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that some of the reliefs sought were covered by previous decisions and dismissed those, but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their grievance regarding burial services, subject to the court's previous order.
Issues: The main issue was the enforcement of fundamental rights related to religious freedom and worship under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India, specifically in the context of funeral services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by previous judgments in similar cases, particularly K.S. Varghese and Others vs. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others (2017) 15 SCC 333 and Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) and Another vs. M. Pappy (Dead) and Another (2018) 9 SCC 672, which established the legal framework for the interpretation of fundamental rights in the context of religious customs and practices.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, but the petitioners were granted liberty to pursue their grievance regarding burial services, subject to the court's previous order.
ORDER
In these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, the following reliefs have been sought:
“a. to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent State of Kerala to enforce the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India; and/or
b. to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent State of Kerala to allow the worshippers of those Parish Churches where the majority of the members who believe in the religious/theological faith and doctrines based on the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch; and/or
c. to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent State of Kerala to afford protection to the Bishops and other clergymen who are ordained under the ecclesiastical Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch in performing religious ceremonies approved by the Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Church of all the East in the Parish Churches where the majority of the Parishioners/worshipers believe in the spiritual and apostolic succession of St. Peter through the Patriarch of Antioch; and/or
d. to declare that the petitioners have a fundamental right of religious freedom and worship guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and thereby to administer the spiritual needs of the petitioners and similarly placed persons as per their faith in the Patriarch of Antioch; and/or
e. to declare that the petitioners and similarly placed persons have the fundamental right of privacy and thereby a right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the right to practice their religion in the Churches in which they are the parishioners as per their faith in the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch; and/ or
f. to declare that the petitioners have the right to follow their religious beliefs and custom based on the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch in the Churches in which the petitioners and similarly placed persons are the parishioners; and/or
g. allow the Writ Petition by affirming the rights of the petitioners under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India to follow all the religious customs like Holy Mass, baptism, confession, marriage, funeral services etc in the Churches as per their religious beliefs and faith;”
2. During the course of the hearing on 7 May 2019, this Court recorded the submission of Mr Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala to the effect that a Cabinet Sub-Committee has been constituted to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement.
3. In view of the above statement, the hearing was adjourned to 2 August 2019.
4. On 2 August 2019, an objection was raised to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions by Mr C U Singh and Mr Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel by relying upon the orders passed by this Court on 15 February 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No 132 of 2019 and on 2 July 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 12461 of 2019.
5. On 15 February 2019, a Bench presided over by the then learned Chief Justice declined to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution [Writ Petition (Civil) 132 of 2019] on the ground that the issues which were raised had already been decided by this Court in two decisions, which are noted in the extract of the order, which is quoted below:
“The issues raised in this petition have been considered and decided by this Court in K.S. Varghese and Others vs. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others (2017) 15 SCC 333 and Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) and Another vs. M. Pappy (Dead) and Another (2018) 9 SCC 672. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
6. On 2 July 2019, this Court in a special leave petition [SLP (C) 12461 of 2019] arising out of a judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 13 March 2019 [Writ Petition (C) No 16248 of 2018] observed thus:
