Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.Suresh Kumar, G.Arul Murugan
District Collector District Collector Office – Appellant
Versus
P.Naveen Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellants and respondents. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observations on the religious practice. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 42 , 56) |
| 4. principles regarding the prohibition of the practice. (Para 36 , 66) |
| 5. final ruling on the case. (Para 67) |
JUDGMENT :
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Both the writ appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 17.05.2024 made in W.P.(MD).No.10496 of 2024. Both these writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals are as follows :
2.1. That one P.Naveen Kumar, S/o. Pitchai Muthu filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P.(MD).No.10496 of 2024, who is the first respondent in these appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein, i.e. Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of him dated 22.04.2024 and grant permission to conduct Annadhanam and Angapradakshinam, i.e., rolling over the plantain leaves left by the devotees after the Annadhanam on 18.05.2024, i.e., on the eve of Jeeva Samadhi day of Sri Sadha
Religious practices are subject to constitutional morality and must not infringe on human dignity or public health, reaffirming the binding nature of higher court judgments.
A single judge cannot declare a Division Bench judgment null; judicial discipline mandates adherence to higher court rulings, ensuring consistency in legal interpretations.
The fundamental right to freely practice religion under Article 25(1) is protected, and any prohibitory orders lacking natural justice are null and void.
High Court cannot direct civil takeover of churches in factional disputes; 1934 Constitution binds parish management; police protection for services, not possession enforcement.
A Single Judge lacks jurisdiction to fully adjudicate civil contempt cases, limited to a prima facie inquiry, with final determinations reserved for a Division Bench after fulfilling statutory prereq....
Caste-based restrictions in the appointment of priests violate constitutional rights to equality and must align with qualifications, not caste.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
