Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Elangovan – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Home Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 27398 of 2023
Decided On : 15-09-2023
For the Petitioner:G. Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel, Assisted by D. Kamachi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, C. Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader.
: The importance of free speech within constitutional limits and the duty to respect religious sensitivities.
Headnote:KEYWORD - Constitution, Free Speech, Untouchability Subject: Circular on College Students' Views Article 19(1)(a), Article 51A, Article 25, Article 17 The court discussed the constitutional duties of citizens under Articles 51A (c), (e), and (f) and emphasized the importance of free speech under Article 19(1)(a). It also highlighted the fundamental right to practice any religion under Article 25 and the abolition of untouchability under Article 17. The judgment underscored that free speech should not be hate speech and must consider religious sensitivities to avoid causing harm.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged a circular requiring college students to share their views on "Opposition to Sanadhana" which was subsequently withdrawn.Finding of the Court:
The court encouraged reflection on the evils of untouchability and its elimination by the students.Issues:
Constitutional duties, free speech, untouchability, withdrawal of circular.Ratio Decidendi:
Emphasized the importance of free speech while considering religious sensitivities and highlighted the duty to abide by constitutional values.Final Decision:
The petition was disposed with no costs.JUDGMENT
(Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Declaration, to declare the circular dated 12.09.2023 issued by the third respondent at the instance of the fourth respondent as unconstitutional and affront to secularism being basic structure of constitution and consequently, forebear the respondents from conducting, organizing and program on 15.09.2023 or any other subsequent dates on the topic of antisanathanam.)
1. This petition herein challenges a circular, dated 12.09.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent, the Principal of the Thiru.Vi.Ka.Government Arts College, apparently pursuant to a communication addressed by the 4th respondent, a sitting MLA of the ruling party in this State. In the impugned circular, the 3rd respondent had required the girl-students studying in the college to share their views on the topic ''Opposition to Sanadhana'' on the occasion of commemoration of the birthday of the former Chief Minister and founder of the D.M.K party, late C.N. Annadurai, which falls on 15.09.2023.
2. Appearing for the petitioner Mr.G.Karthikeyan, the learned Senior Counsel, submitted, that the conduct of the 4th respondent in addressing a communication to the 3rd third respondent on the subject indicated, is in gross breach of his Constitutional duties as a citizen of this country under Article 51A of the Constitution, more particularly, Articles 51A (c), (e) and (f) of the Constitution, as it aims to affect the unity of the country, social harmony and spirit of brotherhood amongst the people of India, and the duty to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.
3. Mr.C.Kathiravan, the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4, and he made a statement, on the written instruction of the 3rd respondent, that the circular impugned in this case has been withdrawn.
4. This Court is conscious to the very vociferous, and at time noisy debates on pro and anti Sanathana Dharma. It has also broadly understood Sanathana Dharama as a set of ''eternal duties'', and that it cannot be traced to one specific literature, but has to be gathered from multiple sources which, either relate to Hinduism, or which those who practice the Hindu way of life, have come to accept. It includes the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King''s duty to his people, duty to one''s parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and whole lot of other duties. If the topic chosen by the impugned circular is now tested on the plane of these duties, it would then mean that all these duties are liable to be destroyed. Should not a citizen love his country? Is he not under a duty to serve his nation? Should not the parents be cared? With genuine concern for what is going round, this Court could not help pondering over it.
5. Somewhere, an idea appears to have gained ground that Sanadhana Dharma is all about, and only about, promoting casteism and untouchability. Untouchability in a country of equal citizens, cannot be tolerated, and even if it is seen as permitted somewhere within the principles of ''Sanathana dharma'', it still cannot have a space to stay, since Article 17 of the Constitution has declared that untouchability has been abolished. It is part of the fundamental right. And, under Art. 51A(a), it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to, “abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions..” Therefore, untouchability, either within or outside Sanatana Dharma can no longer be Constitutional, though sadly it still exits. Here, Mr. G. Karthikeyan, submitted with considerable force that nowhere Sanatana Dharma either approves or promotes untouchability, and it only insists the practitioners of Hinduism to treat all equally. ''As religious practices move with time, some bad or evil practices may un-noticingly creep into it. They are the weeds required to be removed. But why should the crop be chopped?'' - This, in short the essence of the submissions o
