Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 39
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
P. Suresh - Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil & Another - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 27340 of 2019 & W.M.P(MD) No. 23600 of 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2020
For the Petitioner: S.C. Herold Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Bharathi, Government Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of fundamental rights to practice religion and the need for concrete evidence before taking action to enforce public order.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Freedom of Religion - CDJ 2007 MHC 5279, 2005 4 CTC 171, Order, dated 14.08.2012, Order, dated 13.08.2007, Order, dated 30.04.2008, Order, dated 14.12.2012, Judgment, dated 03.01.2017, Order, dated 28.11.2011, Order, dated 31.08.2018, Order, dated 09.03.2018 - The court discussed the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the duty of authorities to safeguard the protection of citizens to practice constitutional rights, and the need for concrete evidence before taking action to enforce public order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with a prayer meeting held at his residence, citing fundamental rights and previous court orders permitting prayers in residences without causing disturbance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should be permitted to conduct prayers at his residence as long as they do not cause hindrance to the general public or give rise to law and order problems.
Issues: Interference with prayer meeting, fundamental rights, duty of authorities to safeguard constitutional rights, law and order problems.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence before taking action to enforce public order and held that the petitioner should be permitted to conduct prayers at his residence without causing hindrance to the general public.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right to conduct prayer at his residence, with the caveat that any law and order problem created would allow the respondent police to take appropriate action.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents and their sub ordinates from disturbing the prayer meeting of the petitioner being held at the house of the petitioner bearing door No. 29/26B, Kunnathur Village, Kanyakumari District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2019.
1. This petition has been filed seeking for a direction from forbearing the respondents and their sub ordinates from disturbing the prayer meeting of the petitioner being held at the house of the petitioner bearing door No. 29/26B, Kunnathur Village, Kanyakumari District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a property in Survey No.250/27 in Kunathur Village, Kanyakumari District on 05.09.1995 by a registered sale deed vide document No. 1454 of 1995. After purchasing the property the petitioner constructed a house and conducting prayer in the said house without causing any disturbance to the public. Some political party is interfering with the conduct of prayer at the house of the petitioner and thereby the petition is filed seeking for a direction.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false complaint has been given by unknown persons to the second respondent, as if, there is a law and order problem due to conducting prayer in his house. He would further submit that the petitioner has given a petition on 25.10.2019 to the respondents for conducting prayer meeting and it is pending before the respondents and thereby, he is not conducting the prayer in his house. He would further submit that this Court, in several writ petitions, have permitted the respective petitioners to conduct prayers in the residence/houses without causing nuisance or disturbance to others and to general public, using speaker and sound system within the permissible limits.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that if prayers are conducted within the residence of the petitioner without causing disturbance to the general public and without using any speaker or sound system, the police will not have any objection in permitting such prayers. However, if the petitioner in the name of prayer, tries to spoil the peace and harmony in the place, then certainly the police will have to interfere to restore normalcy.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights and mandates that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and to exercise their right to freely profess practice and propagate religion and therefore, the petitioner and his brethren belonging to the Christian community are also having such fundamental right and the same cannot be interfered by the respondent police.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would in support of his contention rely on the earlier orders of the Principal Bench of this Court and this Court in W.P.No.2149 of 2018, dated 14.06.2019, W.P.(MD).No. 18955 of 2018, dated 31.08.2018 and W.P.(MD)No.710 of 2019, dated 11.01.2019 and would reiterate that the petitioner cannot be prevented from conducting in his residence/house.
7. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) for the respondents.
8. The specific case of the petitioner is that the prayer is being conducted at his residence and the same is being attended by the petitioner and his relatives and friends belonging to the same community. Further case of the petitioner is that these prayers are not going to cause any nuisance or hindrance to the others living in the locality and no loud speaker or sound system is being used for conducting the said prayers, whereas on the basis of unfounded complaints the petitioner is prevented from conducting prayers.
9. In W.P.(MD)No.710 of 2019, dated 11.01.2019 f
