Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 957
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
Vinayagar Murali - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Another - Respondents
W.P.No.35537 of 2002
Decided On : 13 September 2002
The right to freedom of religion is subject to restrictions on public order, and the regulatory powers of the police under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act are intended to maintain public order and peace.
Headnote:
Secularism - Public Procession - Madras City Police Act, Section 41 - Articles 25, 26, 27 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the principles of secularism, the right to freedom of religion, and the regulatory powers of the police under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act. It emphasized the equal treatment of all religions and the need to maintain public order and peace while exercising the right to religious processions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission for a public procession to celebrate Vinayakar Chathurthi. The Commissioner of Police granted permission to another organization for a similar procession on the same day, leading to the petitioner's grievance and the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Police, emphasizing the need to maintain public order and peace. It directed the Commissioner to consider a joint representation from both organizations for conducting the processions jointly or convene a peace meeting to reach a suitable decision.
Issues: Dispute over permission for a public procession on a religious occasion, conflicting applications for procession on the same day, and the exercise of regulatory powers by the Commissioner of Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to freedom of religion is subject to restrictions on public order, morality, and health. The Commissioner of Police has the discretion to regulate processions to maintain public order and peace, and may consider joint representations or convene peace meetings to resolve conflicts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Commissioner of Police was directed to consider a joint representation or convene a peace meeting to resolve the dispute over the public processions.
Secularism, to which we have pledged ourselves under the Constitution, is not an exaltation of irreligion. Secularism, therefore, is a basic feature of our constitution. Secularism, in Indian Constitution, does not mean an anti-God or aesthetic society, but it means equal status of all religion, without any preference in favour of or discrimination against any one of them, as held in Bommai case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1918.
2. The Constitution, however, does not define the word "religion", even though Articles 25 to 28 deal with religion. These articles embody the principles of religious tolerance. All persons are entitled to freely practice their own faith and religious practice. Hence, the Constitution emphasizes the secular nature of Indian democracy.
3.1. The petitioner is the convenor of the Tamil Nadu State Vinayakar Chathurthi Central Committee consisting of the following organizations:
(a) Hindu Makkal Katchi;
(b) Hanuman Sena;
(c) Shiva Sena;
(d) Shiva Sena Workers Union;
(e) Vinayaka Chathurthi Vizha Kuzhu, Pallavaram and Chengai District;
(f) Vinayaka Chathurthi Committee, Chengai District;
(g) Hindu Munnani.
3.2. Having installed temporary idols at various places in the city and celebrated Vinayakar Chathurthi on 10.9.2002, the petitioners have organized for Anna Dharma to poor people, Ganapathi Homam, Gomatha Pooja and Gaja Pooja, Bhajans and proposes to take a procession on 15.9.2002 at 11.30 am, through the thoroughfare to reach the sea at Marina Beach to immerse the idols of Lord Vinayaka in the sea near the place permitted to them in the northern side of the Seerani Arangam at Marina Beach. Hence, the petitioner applied for permission for taking procession on 15.9.2002, mentioning their routes.
3.3. But one Mr.Ramagopalan representing "Hindu Munnani" had already applied on 26.8.2002 to take a similar procession on 15.9.2002. The Commissioner, exercising his powers conferred under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act, granted permission to the said Ramagopalan to take procession on 15.9.2002 between 1.30 pm and 8.00 pm to reach the sea on the southern side of the Seerani Arangam where they were permitted to install the idol of Lord Vinayaka. Consequently, by proceedings dated 11.9.2002, which is impugned in the above writ petition, the second respondent refused to permit the petitioner to take procession from 1.30 pm on 15.9.2002. However, the petitioner was permitted to perform the poojas and anna dhanas and take the public procession as proposed, at 10.45 am on 14.9.2002, to reach the northern side of Seerani Arangam, where they were permitted to install the idol of Lord Vinayaka by proceedings dated 2.9.2002, prescribing the definite routes and conditions relating to the number of vehicles viz., lorries, tractors and bullock carts, to be used in the procession.
3.4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not challenging any of the conditions imposed in the proceeding dated 11.9.2002, but is only aggrieved by the refusal of permission to take the public procession on 15.9.2002, as proposed, contending that they have already made elaborate preparations to conduct the poojas and annadanas and engaged vehicles to take procession on 15.9.2002. Hence, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent’s proceedings bearing reference No.808/Tha Pi 2/2002 dated 11.9.2002, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to take out the procession on 15th September 2002 as sought for in the application.
4.1. Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner made a representation on 26.8.2002 itself for installing the idol of Lord Vinayaka in the Marina Beach, and on consideration of the same, the Commissioner of Police, viz., the second respondent herein, by proceedings dated 2.9.2002, permitted the petitioner to install the idol of Lord Vinayaka on the northern s
