Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 958 (ALL)

HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-04-10

A.P.SAHI, ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioners assert a right for defining a place inside the premises of the new building of the High Court at Lucknow for offering prayers, particularly in view of the fact that no place has been earmarked as a Temple or Gurudwara for the majority of the visitors including Lawyers as was available in the Old High Court Campus Building at Qaiserbagh. The petitioners assert that in view of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of India such a place should be earmarked and allocated within the High Court campus, as without a place for worship of their choice, they are being deprived of their right to practice and profess Hindu Religion that amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. They contend that not only the Lawyers of different communities but also the litigants and the employees forming a sizeable majority, and having most of their time to spend here, require such a place which would also enhance the ethos and help in maintaining the tolerant atmosphere of the community, thereby protecting the rights of it’s citizens and also upholding the rule of law under the Constitution. It is not only the right to worship that the petitioners assert but Sri H. S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is also the obligation of the State to provide such facilities allowing the petitioners and others visiting the High Court to profess their religion in a particular manner and be able to exercise such rights within the premises itself. 2. This argument has been resisted by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Sri Upendra Nath Misra for the High Court and by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India alike. Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Union of India has urged that Article 25 allows the freedom of conscience and free profession and practice as also propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this Part, i.e., Part-III of the Constitution of India. He contends that there is a freedom to do so but Article 25 of the Constitution nowhere confers any right to any person to exercise this choice at a public place or premises, particularly a premise that represents one of the pillars of secular democracy in this country. 3. He contends that there is a freedom to do so but Article 25 of the Constitution nowhere confers any right to any person to exercise this choice at a public place or premises, particularly a premise that represents one of the pillars of secular democracy in this country. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the High Court have also adopted the same arguments and urge that no such right can be asserted to allot a particular place for worship within the premises of the High Court which is a public building for the cause of justice alone. The insistence of practicing this right within the premises is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution nor is there any obligation on the State to provide such a place as a place of convenience or facility to the petitioners. 4. The aforesaid rival contentions therefore give rise to the moot question as to whether any individual who visits the High Court or who has to perform his duty within the precincts of the High Court can insist for a common place for offering prayers or worshiping his religion. It is also to be seen as to whether such a premises would be a cause for the petitioners to assert such a right under the Constitution of India. It goes without saying that if such rights are being asserted by one particular community, the same would also give a corresponding right in favour of the followers of other religions and people of other communities. The Court has therefore to view the matter from this perspective from the top of the hill and with an eagle’s eye in the background of the provisions of the Constitution and the purpose for which the new building of the High Court has been constructed. 5. We having given a serious thought to the issues raised and have attempted to view this problem in the larger perspective of discipline within the premises of the High Court, the respect for harmony amongst all, the purpose of the construction of this building and also the future over this democratic, secular and non-theocratic republic but at the same time having respect for all religions. 6. At the very outset, we may refer to the opening sentence of the Preamble, where the words used are “WE THE PEOPLE” and not a particular sect or community of people. 6. At the very outset, we may refer to the opening sentence of the Preamble, where the words used are “WE THE PEOPLE” and not a particular sect or community of people. This opening pronouncement in the Constitution therefore clears all doubts that the Constitution protects and rules equally without discriminating the entire citizens of this nation. Article 1 of the Constitution describes India as a ‘Union’ and not a ‘Federation’. The Constitution Makers were aware of the fallouts of the use of the words as the members of a Federation can part company but the members of a Union do not have this option. Thus, the Constitution binds the citizens of this country irrespective of their caste, creed and colour into one union and at the same time extends liberty of freedoms that are guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution including the freedom of conscience and the right to practice one’s own religion. The right of an individual to think freely and to reason out his own choice of religious activity according to his conscience is therefore protected under the Constitution together with the Freedom of Speech and Expression. All such rights are however subject to reasonable restrictions and also designed not to allow one citizen to trench upon the rights of another. The protection of the State as guaranteed under the Constitution therefore envisages a corresponding duty on it’s citizens to abide by the Constitution and also at the same time have the freedoms as guaranteed under the Constitution. There is no mandate under Chapter III of the Constitution on the State to promote the practice of a particular form of worship or profess a particular religion. 7. The places of worship that belong to any particular religion or community can be a matter of choice of any individual or group or community but this freedom also has to be exercised at a place where such a choice can be exercised by way of a personal right being asserted or under the protection of the State. 7. The places of worship that belong to any particular religion or community can be a matter of choice of any individual or group or community but this freedom also has to be exercised at a place where such a choice can be exercised by way of a personal right being asserted or under the protection of the State. Any citizen in his own house or over his own property can define his place of worship subject to any regulatory laws being made in this regard but such a right cannot be acknowledged as a right to be asserted at a public place that has been established to be utilized by every member of the public at large for a particular purpose. Thus a ‘public street’ or a ‘public road’ cannot be claimed to be a place of worship as a matter of fundamental right, even though such places by regulation of the State are allowed to be utilized during religious celebrations. A public office where public duties are being performed by a constitutional functionary or a public servant cannot be allowed to be converted as a place of worship for a particular community or an individual as that would alter the very purpose for which an office or place has been set-up. There are however certain public places, like Airports and Railway Stations and even private malls where a provision for offering prayers separately is made available. This is to say that religious activities for which freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution are also under the purview of law and the State can also make such provisions for places to be utilized for religious purposes. Thus, the individual’s right or the right of a community to practice his religion cannot be a matter of prohibition for the State to make such provision. 8. The question is, is the State obliged to make such provisions at public places everywhere as a matter of choice of the individual, more particularly in the present case within the precincts of the High Court Building? 9. We may now turn towards the purpose for which this building has been constructed. Let us not forget that the High Court in a State under the Constitution is the main pillar of the Judiciary in the State and created under the Constitution that has been enforced on 26th January, 1950. 9. We may now turn towards the purpose for which this building has been constructed. Let us not forget that the High Court in a State under the Constitution is the main pillar of the Judiciary in the State and created under the Constitution that has been enforced on 26th January, 1950. The High Court’s physical existence and creation prior to the advent of the Constitution has been continued under the Constitution but is now governed by the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document of a Socialist Secular Sovereign Democratic Republic. The morals of law and justice are derived from various sources, most potent being that from different religions, variety of cultures, philosophy and civilizations from across the Globe. This rainbow source has influenced the framing of laws that govern society including our own Constitution. The purpose of the High Court is to act as a guardian of the Constitution and dispense justice in all matters of disputes within the jurisdiction defined under the Constitution and the laws that govern the administration of justice. The purpose of the High Court therefore is not the performance of a particular religious activity. The High Court is a Temple of Justice and it’s religion is to dispense justice where the litigants’ interest is supreme. The duty conferred on the High Court is to dispense justice in accordance with law and to enforce and protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution apart from dispensing of adversarial litigation. It may also have to decide disputes arising out of customs, religious practices, and all affiliated disputes relating to religion. Thus, in sum and substance, the premises of the High Court has to be looked upon as a Temple of Justice and not as a place of religious worship. The precincts of this institution should therefore not reflect a partisan flavour but should be an open impartial platform transcending all barriers including the sense of confining the individual or a community to exercise choice of a public place for private worship. The premise of this institution should not be perceived or reflect an image of the existence of any division of interests or expression of mere choices. The portals of this Court should reflect the goal of achieving a common objective, that of establishing, protecting and enforcing the rule of law by dispensing justice. The premise of this institution should not be perceived or reflect an image of the existence of any division of interests or expression of mere choices. The portals of this Court should reflect the goal of achieving a common objective, that of establishing, protecting and enforcing the rule of law by dispensing justice. The priests, the preachers and the devotees of this temple should all strive to usher a sense of confidence and faith in the entire society that it stands in it’s majesty and magnificence to fulfill the ambitions of our forefathers, constitution framers and forerunners of independence and builders of this nation who dreamt of a great nation. All concerned with this institution have to have a common religion, that to practice, promote and deliver justice according to law as this institution stands for the citizens of the State who by their choice and declaration in the Constitution have enjoined upon the legal fraternity to perform their duties effectively, devotedly and firmly for their common cause and for no other. This revered Temple is dedicated to the cause of Justice. This is in no way in conflict with the fulfillment of individual choices or choices of communities who are free to assert their rights subject to what has been observed above. 10. In this background, we are of the opinion that providing a separate place for the purpose of a religious practice of any particular community would not be in conformity with the intent, purpose and ethos of such an institution envisaged and established under the Constitution of India. 11. This does not mean that one cannot even think of religion while inside the Court premises. This is not to prevent the exercise of any such inherent or constitutional right but this is only to maintain the secular fabric that is desirable to maintain the harmonious and avowed purpose of this institution which is only the dispensation of justice without anything more. This is not to prevent the exercise of any such inherent or constitutional right but this is only to maintain the secular fabric that is desirable to maintain the harmonious and avowed purpose of this institution which is only the dispensation of justice without anything more. We do not intend to confine or restrict the choice of an individual or community to act by his conscience or practice a particular form of religious worship, but we restrain ourselves from giving birth to an issue that is neither within the category of an enforceable right or corresponding obligation, namely to provide a particular place for an activity as prayed for in this petition, and we also call upon the petitioners and all concerned to exercise a similar restraint so as to allow the precincts of this institution to flourish as a pure constitutional entity where the religion of Justice prevails. 12. There is nothing which can impel us to conclude that the High Court’s administration is under an obligation to earmark any particular place allowing those coming inside the premises to practice their religion and worship in their own form. Such obligations and rights can be performed by the individuals and communities in the vicinity outside the premises where such facilities are commonly available. 13. We therefore do not find any reason to accept the proposition of the petitioners calling upon the High Court Administration to earmark a particular place and to allow the petitioners to perform their religious activities at such a place including offering prayers. The design, the architecture and more particularly the legal framework within which the premises exists do not cast any such obligation, hence the prayer made is declined. 14. The Writ Petition stands consigned to records with the aforesaid observations.