Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently observed that a person has a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India to carry out any religious vow undertaken by him. Preservation of one's spiritual orientation is included in the right to privacy, court said. 

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan opined, "It is open to a person to express this (spiritual) orientation in the manner he deems fit. Of course, it should not affect the rights and freedoms belonging to others. So long as this rubicon is not crossed, it is not open to the State or the Courts to impinge on one's action".

Referring to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. UOI case, the single judge bench said that Article 25(1) has been held to include preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, home and sexual orientation and it connotes the right to be left alone.

It emphasised that if the right to privacy includes sexual and gender orientation, it certainly includes one's spiritual orientation also.

"If sexual orientation is a private matter, so is one's spiritual orientation," the bench said.

The ruling came in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one P.Naveen Kumar praying for a writ of mandamus to direct Karur district administration to consider his representation seeking permission to perform “Annathanam” and “Angapradakshinam” ie., rolling over the plantain leaves left by the devotees after the “Annathanam” on May 18, 2024, ie., on the eve of Jeeva Samathi Day of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral situated at Nerur Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

The petitioner claimed himself to be a devotee of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral, one of the most well-known saints of Tamil Nadu. The saint's 'Jeeva Samadhi Day' is marked by the performance of “Annadhanam” (sacred offering of food) and other religious rituals.

Before 2015, one of the main events used to be the rolling over (Angapradakshinam) the banana leaves in which other devotees eat food. The performance of this ritual which was 120 years old was stopped in the year 2015.

The petitioner had vowed to perform the said religious service this year. He formally wrote to the authorities seeking permission but his representation did not elicit any response. Hence, he moved the high court. 

The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue involved the petitioner's fundamental right. The petitioner's stand was fully endorsed by the counsel for the President of the Nerur Sathguru Sathasiva Brammediral Sabha as well. 

However, the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the District Administration and the Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the police authorities submitted that their hands were tied in view of the order dated April 28, 2015 in a writ petition.

The single judge bench referred to a catena of judgments of the top court and opined that the petitioner had a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India to carry out the religious vow undertaken by him.

Court noted that it was the genuine belief of the devotees of Sri Sadavisa Brahmendral that performing Angapradakshinam would confer on them spiritual benefit.

"In my considered view, such a right is traceable not only to Article 25(1) but also to the other fundamental rights catalogued in Part III," the bench held. 

Court also took judicial note of the fact that many devotees of Lord Muruga exhibit their piety by piercing small hooks on their tongue, lip or the skin of their back in fulfillment of their vow. Likewise, devotees of Amman undertake fire-walk, carrying of pot of burning coal etc. "These are inseparable features of Tamil religious culture," the single judge bench stressed. 

Furthermore, court took judicial notice of the fact that Angapradakshinam (rolling on ground) is an established religious practice resorted to by verious devotees.

Appar one of the Nayanmars (a collective noun referring to the 63 saiva saints) completed the last leg of his journey to Kailash by rolling on ground...such angapradakshinam is done by Ayyappa devotees. If it is done on the banks of river Pamba, it is called as Pamba Sadhi, the bench highlighted. 

Therefore, the bench held that preventing the devotees of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral from engaging in similar act of devotion would be a gross violation of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Court said that "it is not open to the court to challenge the belief entertained by the petitioner as regards the spiritual efficacy of the practice".

"Performing angapradakshinam on banana leaves after the guests have eaten is an act of high religious worship by Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral's devotees. This right is protected by Part III of the Constitution of India [Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 21 and Article 25(1)]," it held. 

Furthermore, regarding the 2015 decision in a writ petition, the single judge bench held that the writ petition which was filed by one Dalit Pandian suffered from the fatal vice of non-joinder of necessary parties.

Direction to the authorities not to allow anyone to roll over on the plantain leaves left after the partaking of the meals was issued behind the back of the devotees and the trustees. They were not put on notice. They were not heard. No opportunity was afforded to them to place their case before the Court. In short, there was an egregious breach of the principles of natural justice, the bench highlighted. 

If an administrative order or a quasi judicial order can be ignored as nullity on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the sequitur is that judicial order will also meet the same fate, court said. 

Moreover, on the question of violation of Article 17 of the Constitution or the right to human dignity, the high court held that in the writ petition of 2015, the materials placed before the court clearly indicated that there was absolutely no caste discrimination, therefore, Article 17 was clearly out of picture.

Regarding the issue of human dignity, court held that "in religious matters it is not open to third parties except in exceptional circumstances to make peremptory declaration as to what is dignified and what is not".

"There can be no a priori assumption. The standards set for determining whether a given ritual / practice is in consonance with the principles of constitutional morality are more rigorous than the standard set for determining whether such practice violates any of the individual provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The person making the assertion that the religious practice violates constitutional morality must discharge the burden," court said. 

Court held that in the present matter, the right claimed by the petitioner was a part of his privacy right.

Court said that the prayer made by the petitioner was unnecessary. "For conducting the customary religious events in villages, one does not require permission from the authorities. Only if the festival organisers want to install sound amplifiers, permission will have to be sought. Therefore, the question of the respondents granting permission does not arise at all," court held. 

Court asserted that no private individual can prevent the petitioner or any devotee from exercising his fundamental right. "If there is any such obstruction, it is the duty of the police to aid the petitioner to exercise his fundamental right and remove the obstructors from the scene," court said. 

Accordingly, court allowed the writ petition restraining the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 & 6 (official respondents) from interfering with the conduct of the petition-mentioned event.

Case Title: P.Naveen Kumar v. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Karur District and others