The right to bury dead bodies in accordance with one's religious rites and customs is a part of the essential religious rites of every religious community and hence it cannot be prohibited. Even if there was an agreement between the Muslim community and the Devendrakula Vellalar community that Muslims will not use Kottai Kaliamman Kovil Street, such an agreement will be in violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 25 of the Constitution.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to avoid communal clash by enforcing funeral procession of Muslim community only through Mandukal street at Balasamuthiram village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District as per agreement dated 12.4.1998 reached between Muslim and Devendrakula Vellalar communities.)

Markandey Katju, C.J.

This writ petition is a sequel to our decision in Mohd.Gani v. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, 2005(3) L.W 289.

2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to avoid communal clashes by permitting funeral processions of Muslim community only through Mandukal street at Balasamuthiram village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District as per agreement dated 12.4.1998 reached between Muslim and Devendrakula Vellalar communities.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petitioner's affidavit that in the village in question there are four thousand people belonging to Devendrakula Vellalar Community whereas there are only one thousand Muslims in the village. It is further alleged in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that in the village, the Muslims traditionally use Devar East Street otherwise called Mandukal Street to carry dead bodies to burial ground. However, it is alleged that one Mohamed Gani the fifth respondent instigated the village Muslims to use Kottai Kaliamman Koil Street where Karuppannasamy temple and Kaliamman Kovil and the petitioner's house are said to be situated. It is alleged that an objection was raised and then an agreement was reached between the Devendrakula Vellalar community people and the Muslim community people before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, the third respondent herein, on 12.4.1998 according to which the Muslim community people including the said Mohamed Gani the fifth respondent agreed to use Mandukal street for funeral procession and not to use Kottai Kaliamman Kovil Street running through the petitioner's colony.

5. Mohamed Gani filed Writ Petition No.5202 of 1998 and prayed for police protection for funeral processions of Muslims according to the agreement dated 25.1.1998 and it is alleged that he did not make any member of the Devendrakula Vellalar community as a party in that writ petition. It is alleged that even according to the agreement dated 25.1.1998 Muslims have to use Mandukal street only and not Kottai Kaliamman Street.

6. Writ Petition No.5202 of 1998 was decided on 14.7.2005 by this Court and that decision is reported in 2005(3)L.W. 289 Mohamed Gani vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul and others.

7. It is alleged that Muslims want to carry dead bodies through Kottai Kaliamman Street instead of the agreed route of Mandukal Street and thereby there may be communal clashes.

8. This is a free, democratic and secular country as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohamed Gani's case (supra). India does not belong to Hindus alone. It belongs equally to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, etc. and all are equal before the law.

9. No doubt, one cannot carry dead bodies through private land but we cannot see what objection can there be in carrying dead bodies through public streets. After all people of all communities have to take dead bodies to the cremation ground or burial place, and for this purpose they have to use the public streets or roads.

10. In Mohamed Gani vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul and others (supra) we have discussed this matter in great detail and hence we are not repeating the observations made in that judgment. As held by us in that judgment, the right to bury dead bodies in accordance with one's religious rites and customs is a part of the essential religious rites of every religious community and hence it cannot be prohibit