The judgment established the legality of religious processions on a highway and the protection given to assemblies lawfully engaged in religious worship. It emphasized the need for caution in restricting the use of highways and highlighted the historical and traditional significance of religious processions in India.

Subrahmania Aiyar, J.

1. It is necessary first to consider the charges against the 3rd and 7th accused, whom the 11th accused has been charged with abetting.

2. Taking up the charge under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, the question on which practically the case turns is whether the recitation by the two accused during the procession in question of Prabandhams or Tamil hymns was illegal, not on the ground that it was against any usage of the institution, but with reference to the decision in O.S. No. 295 of 1886 in the District Munsifs Court of Conjeevaram. That decision only declared that the Tengalais were entitled to the Office of Adhyapakam, and in that capacity, as usual to recite the Prabandham on all the prescribed occasions of worship, without let or hindrance by the Vadagalais. It did not in the least affect the rights of the Vadagalais as ordinary worshippers. Having regard to the fact that that suit was entirely in relation to an office, it must, even if the decision had been silent as to the rights of the Vadagalais as ordinary worshippers, not office-holders, be taken that such rights were left untouched but the decision is not silent on the matter. It in express terms refers to and preserves the rights of the Vadagalais, as ordinary worshippers, to recite the Prabandhams even in the company of and jointly with the office-holders, whose duty it is to recite them on such occasions. The attempt on behalf of the prosecution to construe this reference in the decision to the right of the Vadagalais to so join in the recitation, as a declaration that the Vadagalais are disentitled from reciting except in conjunction with the office-holders is on the face of it untenable. The Tengalais as Adhyapakars are subject to a duty to recite Prabandhams the performance of such duty entitling them to the emoluments of the office. They cannot, in consequence of their being Adhyapakars, claim an exclusive right to recite them and as the recitation of Prabandhams is a recognised form of worship both with the Vadagalais and the Tengalais, every Vadagalai must prima facie be held entitled to recite them by way of worship otherwise than in conjunction with the office-holders. No doubt, if the Vadagalais join the office-holders at the recitation on occasions of worship, it stands to reason that they should do so without in any manner interfering with the due recitation by the office-holders. In such circumstances the office-holders would be entitled to insist that the Vadagalais should recite only those hymns which they themselves were reciting, as otherwise they would be interfered with in the due discharge of their duties. But there is nothing to prevent a Vadagalai by himself or Vadagalais in a body reciting the Prabandhams separately from the office-holders and in doing so reciting verses different from those which the Adhyapakars may be reciting, provided that that is done without interference with the Adhyapakars.

3. Such being the rights of the Vadagalais, did the accused on the occasion in question interfere with the office-holders by the recitation complained of clearly not. Admittedly, the parties were at that time at a distance of 150 feet from each other. Between them stood the body of torn beaters doing their part of the work and those who carried the idol, as well as the motley crowd which assembles at these festivals. Having regard to the bustle and confusion inevitable on such occasions, it is impossible for the office-holders to have heard anything of the recitation by the accused. This is almost conclusively proved by the fact that the office-holders had to send out persons to ascertain whether any recitation by the Vadagalais was taking place. It must consequently be held that the accused did not interfere with the office-holders, by reciting Prabandhams as they did, and that they were not therefore guilty of any illegal act so as to bring them within the purview of Section 153.

4. The charge under Section 296