The celebration of the 2500th Anniversary of Bhagwan Mahavir Nirvan is not violative of the secular character of the State and the expenditure on the impugned programme from the public funds is not contrary to the prohibition contained in Article 27 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) IS India a secular State ? If so, in what sense ? These questions arc raised by this writ petition filed by a Hindu and the connected writ petitions Nos. 1225 of 1973. 235 of 1974 and 919 of 1974 filed by some Jains to challenge the legality of the programme of the celebration of the 2500th Anniversary of Bhagwan Mahavir s Nirvan (Salvation) extending over a period of one year from November 13, 1974 onwards by the Goverment of India.

( 2 ) THE programme for the celebration drawn up by a National Advisory Committee consisting mainly of prominent members of the Jain Community and approved by the Government involving an expenditure of about rupees fifty lakhs by the Government includes the following:-Development of a national park named after Bhagwan Mahavir, Erection of stone pillars therein with inscriptions from his sayings, episodic treatment of his life by sculptors; Establishment of a museum of Jain art and paintings, a library of Jain literature; Setting up of a National Council of Jainological studies; Setting up of twenty Bhagwan Mahavir Bal Kendras in which apart from recreation etc. , arrangements for imparting knowledge about the life and teachings of Bhagwan Mahavir to children would be made; Establishment of rural library centres named after Bhagwan Mahavir in each State; monument at the birth place of Bhagwan Mahavir at Vaishali consisting of a concealed water tank; Organising of Bhagwan Mahavir Memorial Lectures and institution visiting fellowships and scholarships, arranging seminars, organising joint meetings of the heads of research centres and institutions of Jain learnings; Publication of books on life and teachings of Bhagwan Mahavir; releasing of a postal stamp on November 13, 1974; showing documentary films on Jain art, architecture, paintings and places of pilgrimage; Exhibitions of Jain art, literature, paintings, culture and manuscripts; Declaring November 13. 1974 a Dry and closure of slaughter houses and sale of meat inpublic eating houses, etc.

( 3 ) WHILE all the petitioners ostensibly take the stand that India is a secular State and that the impugned programme is contrary to the secular nature of the State, there is a basic difference in the approach of the Hindu petitioner and the Jain petitioners. Understandably, the Hindu petitioner complains that the State is virtually promoting and maintaining Jain religion in particular and in preference to other religions by the implementation of the impugned programme and, therefore, the expenditure on it from the public funds is contrary to the prohibition contained in Article 27 of the Constitution. He further says that his Art. 27 :-Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.-No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religion denomination. own fundamental right to profess and practise Hinduism guaranteed by Article 25 is violated by it. There is some plausibility about nonjains feeling discriminated against by this State patronage of the celebration of an event which the non-Jains are likely to regard as giving a greater importance to the Jains than to the others.

( 4 ) IN this background one would not have expected that some members of the Jain community also would feel aggrieved by the impugned programme. For, after all it boosts up the memory of their prophet Mahavir. But the Jain petitioners appear to be the more orthodox members of the Jain community. They say that Mahavir was only the last of the Tirthankars and his role was purely religious. He was not a social reformer. The Jain scriptures lay down the religious practice or the manner (Aradhana) as to how the Jains should observe the Nirvan Anniversary. The impugned programme violates Jain religious practice and the right of the Jains to manage their own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed by Artic