Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1259
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
Albert Raj - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.16804 of 2003 and 21187 of 2005
Decided On : 03 August 2005
The fundamental right of freedom of religion, as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, cannot be restricted based on the number of persons practicing a particular religion in a locality.
Headnote:
Freedom of Religion - Construction of Church Building - The court held that the impugned order rejecting permission for construction of the Church Building based on the number of Christians in the locality was illegal and unconstitutional, as it violated the fundamental right of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. The court also relied on the principle of secularism and equal respect to all religions as a basic feature of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to construct a church building and to conduct marriages in the church. The District Collector rejected the permission based on the low number of Christians in the locality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order to be illegal and unconstitutional, as it violated the fundamental right of freedom of religion. The court also dismissed the related petition as no further orders were required.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of permission for the construction of the church building based on the number of Christians in the locality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. The court also emphasized the principle of secularism and equal respect to all religions as a basic feature of India.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed. The related petition was dismissed with no costs.
(PRAYER in W.P.No.16804 of 2003: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
PRAYER in W.P.No.21187 of 2005: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Mandamus as stated therein.)
Heard both sides.
2. By consent, the writ petitions are taken for hearing.
3.1. In W.P.No.16804 of 2003, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 31.3.2002 in RC.No.66444/99 (C3) and quash the same as illegal and unlawful and direct the first respondent to accord permission to construct the Panavilai C.S.I.Church Building in R.S.No.183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District.
3.2. In W.P.No.21187 of 2005, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 5 or their subordinates or anybody claiming under them from disturbing or obstructing from conducting marriages in Panavilai C.S.I. Church in Kanyakumari District.
4. Concededly, planning permission for construction of the Panavilai C.S.I.Church Building in R.S.No.183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District was already sanctioned by the third respondent in W.P.No.16804 of 2003 and the same is also supported by the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.11.1999. However, by the impugned proceedings dated 31.3.2002, the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, on unsustainable reason, namely there are only a few C.S.I. Christians in the hamlet of Panavilai, rejected the permission for construction of the Church Building. Even as per the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 31.3.2002, a Hindu Temple is located at the distance of 198 feet away from the proposed Church Building.
5. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India states that subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
6. That apart, the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 14.7.2005 made in W.P.No.5202 of 1998, held as follows:
".. 13. This is a free, democratic and secular country. In our country people of all religions, castes and communities are equal under the Constitution, vide Articles 14 to 18, and they have a right freely to practice their religion, vide Article 25. This country does not belong to Hindus alone. It belongs equally to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, etc., and all are equal under the law. Also, it is not that only Hindus can live in this country as first-rate citizens while others can live only as second-rate citizens. That is not so. In our country all citizens are, and are entitled to live, as first-rate citizens. It is the greatness of our Founding Fathers who made the Constitution that at the time of Independence in 1 947 when the sub continent was engulfed in religious madness they insisted that our country shall not be declared as a Hindu State, but shall be a secular State. This was indeed a very difficult thing to do at that time, because when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool mind. There must have been tremendous pressure on our Founding Fathers to declare India a Hindu State, particularly since Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic State. It is the greatness of our Founding Fathers that they kept a cool mind and resisted these pressures, and provided for a Secular State in India under our Constitution.
14. A basic feature of India is that it is a country with tremendous diversity having so many religions (including their different sects), castes (including hundreds of sub-castes), communities, languages, ethnic groups,etc. Hence, the only policy that can work in this country, and keep it united and on the path of progress is the policy of secularism and giving equal respect to all religions, castes, ethnic groups, communities, languages, cultures,
