Back
2004 Supreme(Ori) 557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur, A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
ACHARYA JAGADISWARANANDA AVADHUTA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Civil Appeal No. 6230 of 1990
Decided On : 11-03-2004
Headnote:
The Court held that the practice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith. The Court also held that the subsequent addition in Carya Carya could not constitute Tandava dance essential part of Ananda Margi faith. The Court further held that Ananda Margis have the fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Ananda Margis are entitled to take a procession in public places after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and they are also entitled to carry Trishul or Triden, Conch or Skull so long as such procession is peaceful and does not offend the religious sentiments of other people who equally enjoy fundamental right to exercise their religious freedom.
Fact of the Case:
Ananda Margis sought permission of the Commissioner of Police to perform Tandava dance in public. The Commissioner accorded permission to take out Tandava dance without knife; live snake, trident or skull. This was challenged by the Respondents herein before this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1317-18 of 1987. This Court with the following observation disposed it of: We are of the view that these cases should appropriately be examined by the High Court keeping in view that has been said by this Court in the judgment in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Another. Petitioners are at liberty to go before High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the practice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith. The Court also held that the subsequent addition in Carya Carya could not constitute Tandava dance essential part of Ananda Margi faith. The Court further held that Ananda Margis have the fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Ananda Margis are entitled to take a procession in public places after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and they are also entitled to carry Trishul or Triden, Conch or Skull so long as such procession is peaceful and does not offend the religious sentiments of other people who equally enjoy fundamental right to exercise their religious freedom.
Issues: 1. Whether the practice of Tandava dance in public is an essential part of Ananda Margi faith? 2. Whether the subsequent addition in Carya Carya could constitute Tandava dance essential part of Ananda Margi faith? 3. Whether Ananda Margis have the fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the Ananda Margis are entitled to take a procession in public places after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and they are also entitled to carry Trishul or Triden, Conch or Skull so long as such procession is peaceful and does not offend the religious sentiments of other people who equally enjoy fundamental right to exercise their religious freedom?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the practice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith. The Court also held that the subsequent addition in Carya Carya could not constitute Tandava dance essential part of Ananda Margi faith. The Court further held that Ananda Margis have the fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Ananda Margis are entitled to take a procession in public places after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and they are also entitled to carry Trishul or Triden, Conch or Skull so long as such procession is peaceful and does not offend the religious sentiments of other people who equally enjoy fundamental right to exercise their religious freedom.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra Babu, J. - This is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation question raised before this Court was whether performance of Tandava dance in public is an essential practice of Ananda Margi order or not. This Court in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Another, (First Ananda Margi case), held that Tandava dance in public is not an essential rite of Ananda Margi faith. Subsequent to the first case, it appears that Ananda Murti Ji - founder of that order prescribed to perform Tandava dance in public as an essential religious practice in Carya Carya, a book containing the relevant doctrines. Based on this, Ananda Margis sought permission of the Commissioner of Police to perform Tandava dance in public. The Commissioner accorded permission to take out Tandava dance without knife; live snake, trident or skull. This was challenged by the Respondents herein before this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1317-18 of 1987. This Court with the following observation disposed it of:
We are of the view that these cases should appropriately be examined by the High Court keeping in view that has been said by this Court in the judgment in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Another. Petitioners are at liberty to go before High Court.
2. Firstly a Single Judge and subsequently a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court arrived at the conclusion that taking out Tandava dance in public carrying skull, trident etc. is an essential part of Ananda Margi faith and Commissioner of Police could not impose conditions to it. This decision is now under challenge.
3. When this matter came up for consideration before this Court, a Bench of two learned Judges made an order on 13.11.1992 as follows:
After hearing the parties for sometime and having considered the decision of the three learned Judges of this Court in Acharya Jagdishwarananand Avadhuta etc. v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta and Anr. 1984 (1) SCA. 447, we are of the view that this is a matter which requires consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court. Hence, we request the learned Chief Justice to constitute the Bench as early as possible for hearing of the matter.
4. On 4.12.2001 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered this matter and noticed that (i) that the Bench does not express any difficulty in following the earlier judgment, (ii) that they do not set out any substantial question of law which requires the decision of a Constitution Bench since that order merely stated that the matter should be heard and decided by a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench felt that in those circumstances there was no justification for hearing the appeal by the Constitution Bench and therefore placed the matter back before the two learned Judges for final disposal who in their turn made a reference to a Bench of three Judges.
5. The relevant question herein for consideration is whether the High Court is correct in it's finding that Tandava dance is an essential and integral part of Ananda Margi faith based on the revised edition of Carya Carya. A bench consisting of three Judges of this Court in first Ananda Margi case arrived at a unanimous conclusion on facts that Tandava dance in public is not an essential and integral part of Ananda Margi faith. In order to arrive at this conclusion this Court inter alia took the following four aspects into account.
1. Shri. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar otherwise known as Shri. Ananda Murti, founded a socio-spiritual organization claimed to have been dedicated to the service of humanity in different spheres of life such as physical, mental and spiritual, irrespective of caste, creed or colour, in the year 1955.
2. Ananda Marga contains no dogmatic beliefs and teaches the yogic and spiritual science to every aspirant.
3. Tandava dance was not accepted as an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis in 1955 when that order was f
