Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 144 (CHH)

BASANT KUMAR BHAGAT v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2017-03-28

P.SAM KOSHY, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2017
ORDER : THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The writ Petitioner seeks a direction requiring the official respondents to ensure that the Sarhul Puja of the Uraon community shall be only in conformity with the calendar fixed by the State Government enlisting holidays for the year. Accordingly, it is pleaded that none has the right to conduct the said Puja on any day other than the date of Sarhul Puja as stated in the calender published by the State Government, also enlisting the holidays for the State Government offices and employees. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate General. 3. The fundamental right to freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion is guaranteed through Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. The decisions in Ratilal v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1954 SC 388 ) and Venkataramana v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1958 SC 255 ) were rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down that religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines. The Apex Court held in Commissioner, HRE v. Lakshmindra ( AIR 1954 SC 282 ) that performance of certain ceremonies at a particular intervals, recitals of sacred texts and so on would be regarded as part of religion. In the manner in which the freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion is conceived, such guaranteed fundamental right is made subject to only public order, morality and to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. This shows that the State cannot prescribe any restriction impairing such right otherwise than by enforcing the restrictive covenants contained in clause (1) of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The provisions in clause (2) of Article 25 are also of no avail to empower the State to make any particular law fixing a day or date for conduct of rituals, observances or ceremonies as part of any religion. The executive power is co-extensive with the legislative power. The provisions in clause (2) of Article 25 are also of no avail to empower the State to make any particular law fixing a day or date for conduct of rituals, observances or ceremonies as part of any religion. The executive power is co-extensive with the legislative power. The noting of a particular day in the calender issued by the Government, as a day of religious importance cannot be indicative of any compulsion through law, or even by an executive decision, obliging any person or religion denomination to hold any particular ceremony or ritual on a particular day or only on a particular day. This is fundamentally so because, there cannot be any restriction beyond what is inbuilt in Article 25 of the Constitution, which provision also contains the constitutional insulation for the freedoms guaranteed therein, subject to authority of the State to make laws that would fall under sub-clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution. The notification issued by the State Government enumerating holidays would operate only in terms of these principles, insofar as it relates to holidays relatable to religion and matter connected therewith. 4. The Petitioner relies on the orders issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition, namely, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1967 of 2007. An interlocutory order was issued on 30.03.2007 in that case, essentially on the ground of apprehended breach of peace. On 13.04.2007, that writ petition was finally ordered recording that the ritual for that year was already conducted. Certain directions which are of no relevance for the issues in hand were also issued. Those prior orders do not constitute any precedent in the law to be considered for being followed by us in this matter. They could be treated as only indicating the power of the State to preserve law and order when it is breached or when there is a real apprehension of its breach. 5. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no legal right, either in the Petitioner, or to be entertained otherwise through this public interest litigation, to seek any direction or order ensuring that certain religious rituals, ceremonies and practices are performed only on the particular day notified by the State Government with reference to religious purposes, while enlisting holidays for a calender year. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.