Dismissed

Rangarajan Narasimhan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC18 Jun 2019WP/16157/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Government's circular directing Yagnas and specific prayers in temples. Upholding a coordinate Division Bench's decision, the court rejected the argument that the circular violated fundamental rights, stating courts cannot interfere with religious faith or policy decisions regarding rainfall rituals.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Rangarajan Narasimhan Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18/6/2019

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶5

W.P.No.16157 of 2019

¶6

and W.M.P.Nos.15891 and 15892 of 2019

¶7

Rangarajan Narasimhan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Commissioner HR & CE Department 119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai

¶10

Nungambakkam

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. ...

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.23603/2019/K4, dated 26/4/2019, quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the first respondent not to interfere in the religious affairs of any temple which are under the supervisory control of the department of the first respondent.

¶15

For petitioner ... Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan Petitioner-in-person

¶16

For respondents... Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

(Order of this Court was made by Subramonium Prasad, J)

¶19

Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan, petitioner has filed the instant public interest writ petition, praying for issuance of a writ of

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order of the Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Chennai, first respondent, in Na.Ka.No.23603/2019/K4, dated 26/4/2019, as illegal and consequentially, direct the first respondent, not to interfere, in the religious affairs of any temple, which are under the supervisory control of the department of the first respondent.

¶22

Petitioner, who appeared in person, has primarily challenged the power of the Government, to pass the impugned Circular, dated 26/4/2019, by which, the Government of Tamil Nadu, have written letters, to all Joint Commissioners, to conduct Yagna in all the temples, under the control of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, so that, State may enjoy bountiful rain and attain prosperity, in Sri Vihari year 2019 – 2020. Impugned letter reads as under:-

¶23

Na.Ka.No.23603/2019/K4, dated 26/4/2019

¶24

“It has been decided to conduct yagna in all important temples under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department so that the State may enjoy bountiful rain and attain prosperity in the Srivihari year 2019 – 20. It is hereby instructed that subordinate officers are instructed that the following programs be conducted in all the important temples with due respect to local customs by the officers concerned.

¶25

. Parjamya Shanthi Varuna Jana Velvi with Special Abishekam.

¶26

. Construction of water tank of Nandi statue filling up the tank with water to neck level and conduct of prayers.

¶27

. Chanting bu odivars of Sundaramurthy Nayanars seventh Thirunavukkaras.

¶28

. Singing of Thirugnanasambandars thevara rain pathigam in 12the Thirunavukarasu in Megara Kurinchi style.

¶29

. Asking musicians to pay amirthavarshini, megavarshini, kedari and Anantha bairavi ragas in nagaswaran flute and violing.

¶30

. Performing seethal kumbam for shiva in Shiva

¶31

temples.

¶32

. Performing Rudrabhisekam in Shiva temples . Special Thirugnansambandars for Mahavishnu . Special pathigam for rain

¶33

. Abishekam for Sri Mariamman with milk, curd and tender coconut water.

¶34

. Specially Mahaabishekam for Mahanandhi in Thirunavukarasu Shiva temple in Mayavaram Taluk in

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

Nagapattinam District. . Varuna Sudha cedaantra parayanama. . Varuna Gayathri mantra parayanama.

¶37

The staff concerned are directed to select suitable learned persons for performing the above ceremonies and start the performance of directed activities at the earliest.

¶38

The Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Executive Officers of the concerned temples are directed to personally supervise the performance of the activities and ensure that they are performed according to the given instructions.

¶39

The Zonal Joint Commissioners are directed to inform this office before 2/5/2019 of the detailed schedule of the above activities planned.

¶40

Further after the completion of the above activities they are required to send a separate report on the method of conduct of the directed activities.

¶41

Petitioner has submitted that the abovesaid letter violates the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. According to him, in matters of religion, the Government can only have a say, on secular matters and cannot interfere in religious affairs of the people. Petitioner further stated that the purport of the letter is to direct the Joint Commissioners', to conduct Yagna, in a particular way, which cannot be done, as it amounts to interference in religious affairs of the people.

¶42

Petitioner has also filed a copy of the order, dated 15/5/2019, passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.14417 of 2019, wherein a decision has been rendered on the challenge to a Circular of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, respondent therein, in Na.Ka.No.23606/19/K4, dated 26/4/2019. We found from the order in W.P.No.14417 of 2019 that the contents of the Circular are same. We therefore, called for the records of the said case. It is found that the very same Circular, which was impugned in the writ petition is also the subject matter of the writ petition, in W.P.No.14417 of 2019. But there is typographical mistake that instead of Na.Ka.No.23603, it has been wrongly typed as Na.Ka.No.23606.

¶43

We have given our anxious consideration to the grounds of challenge in W.P.No.14417 of 2019, decisions rendered by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and find that the challenge in both cases is more or less similar. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶44

“9. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the circular has directed, expenditure of public money for the performance of the Yagnas as

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

stipulated above and has taken objection to such expenditure of public money. It was also pointed out that Article 25 of the Constitution of India provides only individual rights to practice religion and not practicing in the manner as provided in the circular. 10. We disagree with the said contention.

¶47

Article 25 of the Constitution of India is as follows:

¶48

“25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

¶49

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—

¶50

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

¶51

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

¶52

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

¶53

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”

¶54

In the majority judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 7 MLJ 889, The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dipak Misra, speaking for himself and for Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, observed thus:

¶55

“98. Now adverting to the rights guaranteed Under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, be it clarified that Article 25(1), by employing the expression 'all persons', demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is available, though subject to the restrictions delineated in Article 25(1) itself, to every person including women.

¶56

It needs to be understood that the kernel of Article 26 is 'establishment of a religious institution' so as to acclaim the status of

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

religious denomination. Whereas, Article 25(1) guarantees the right to practise religion to every individual and the act of practice is concerned, primarily, with religious worship, rituals and observations as held in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/0056/1977 : (1977) 1 SCC 677. Further, it has been held in The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954] SCR 1005, that the logic underlying the constitutional guarantee regarding 'practice' of religion is that religious practices are as such a part of religion as religious faith or doctrines.

¶59

Another authoritative pronouncement in regard to the freedom to practise a religion freely without with any fictitious and vague constraint is the case of Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770, wherein the Court observed thus:

¶60

The full concept and scope of religious freedom is that there are no restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of one's conscience or upon the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion save those imposed under the police power of the State and the other provisions of Part II of the Constitution. This means the right to worship God according to the dictates of one's conscience. Man's relation to his God is made no concern for the State. Freedom of conscience and religious belief cannot, however, be, set up to avoid those duties which every citizen owes to the nation; e.g. to receive military training, to take an oath expressing willingness to perform military service and so on.” [Emphasis supplied]

¶61

In the dissenting judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Ms.Justice Indu Malhotra in Indian Young Lawyers Association, supra, the scope of judicial interference in religious faith and practices and more particularly in the light of Article 25 had been discussed as hereunder:-

¶62

“7.1. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience, and the right freely to profess,

¶63

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶64

practise and propagate religion. This is however subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

¶65

7.5. Article 25(1) confers on every individual the right to freely profess, practise and propagate his or her religion.[H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India : A Critical Commentary, Vol. II (4th Ed., Reprint1999), at Pg. 1274, para 12.35]. The right of an individual to worship a specific manifestation of the deity, in accordance with the tenets of that faith or shrine, is protected by Article 25(1) of the Constitution. If a person claims to have faith in a certain deity, the same has to be articulated in accordance with the tenets of that faith. ......

¶66

7.6. The right to practise one’s religion is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, without reference to whether religion or the religious practises are rational or not. Religious practises are Constitutionally protected under Articles 25 and 26(b). Courts normally do not delve into issues of religious practises, especially in the absence of an aggrieved person from that particular religious faith, or sect. .....”

¶67

10.8. The Constitution lays emphasis on social justice and equality. It has specifically provided for social welfare and reform, and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus through the process of legislation in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Article 25 (2)(b) is an enabling provision which permits the State to redress social inequalities and injustices by framing legislation. It is therefore difficult to accept the contention that Article 25 (2)(b) is capable of application without reference to an actual legislation. What is permitted by Article 25(2) is State made law on the grounds specified therein, and not judicial intervention. ....... .......

¶68

10.13. Judicial review of religious practises ought not to be undertaken, as the Court cannot

¶69

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶70

impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity. Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. It would amount to rationalising religion, faith and beliefs, which is outside the ken of Courts.

¶71

11.2. India is a country comprising of diverse religions, creeds, sects each of which have their faiths, beliefs, and distinctive practises. Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would comprehend the freedom of every individual, group, sect, or denomination to practise their religion in accordance with their beliefs, and practises.

¶72

11.3. The Preamble to the Constitution secures to all citizens of this country liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Article 25 in Part III of the Constitution make freedom of conscience a Fundamental Right guaranteed to all persons who are equally entitled to the right to freely profess, practise and propagate their respective religion. This freedom is subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Article 26 guarantees the freedom to every religious denomination, or any sect thereof, the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, own and acquire movable and immovable property, and to administer such property in accordance with law. This right is subject to public order, morality and health. The right under Article 26 is not subject to Part III of the Constitution.

¶73

11.4. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the rich history and heritage of this country being a secular polity, with diverse religions and faiths, which were protected within the fold of Articles 25 and 26. State interference was not permissible, except as provided by Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, where the State may make law providing for social welfare and reform.

¶74

11.5. The concept of Constitutional Morality refers to the moral values underpinning the text of the Constitution, which are instructive in ascertaining the true meaning of the

¶75

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶76

Constitution, and achieve the objects contemplated therein.

¶77

11.6. Constitutional Morality in a pluralistic society and secular polity would reflect that the followers of various sects have the freedom to practise their faith in accordance with the tenets of their religion. It is irrelevant whether the practise is rational or logical. Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts.”

¶78

[Emphasis supplied]

¶79

14.What emerges from the ratio laid down is that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is available and that there are no restraints upon the free exercise of religion and the Court cannot impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship and it is irrelevant whether the practise is rational or logical. Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by Courts.

¶80

In the present case, the policy of the Government cannot be interfered with by the judiciary. Every individual has to have mutual respect for the decisions taken as policy decisions by the Legislature and by the Executive. Judiciary being the guardian of legal rights, has to ensure that such policy confirms to the norms laid down by the Constitution of India. The present writ petition appears to be clearly an attempt to disturb the faith in the religious beliefs among the people. There is a clear attempt to bring about disruption in peace and harmony.

¶81

It is not for this Court to interfere with or criticize upon any method be it religious or scientific adopted with hope to bring about bountiful rainfall in the State by issuing the Circular. Whether such method of performing poojas or yagnas to bring about rain is a success or failure is not within the scope of examination by this Court in the writ petition. It is performed with hope and belief and though they may be successful or not, this Court cannot destroy such belief or hopes of the multitude of people.

¶82

As an illustrative case, a farmer with a small piece of agricultural land, would not be able to grow any crop owing to lack of rainfall. He would hope and believe that rain would come some day to save him from the unfortunate situation in which he and his family have been forced to. Faith would lead to, in his limited knowledge, to perform poojas and invoke the benevolence of God to bring about rain. When such poojas are done by

¶83

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶84

him, it would again lead to economic depravity. When however such poojas are performed in a temple close to his place, he would very willingly join with the belief and hope that the prayers would be answered. That faith which the farmer has, cannot be destroyed by this Court. That faith which the farmer has is strengthened by performing the poojas, which the State has encouraged through the impugned circular.

¶85

It is also to be mentioned that normally and consistently the Courts have kept away from interfering with religious practices and beliefs. Rarely has any Court interfered with any religious practice and religious belief. The circular has been issued only with respect to the temples that are under the control and administration of the Government.

¶86

We do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the issuance of such circular necessitating interference with the same. We offer no opinion as to whether the practice is scientific in nature or purely religious in nature.

¶87

Perusal of the abovesaid judgment in W.P.No.14417 of 2019, dated 26/4/2019, would show that Circular impugned herein, has been upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Though Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan, Party-in-Person made submissions that the Hon'ble Divsiion Bench did not consider certain aspects and therefore, the same cannot be a precedent, going through the grounds raised in the instant writ petition and the order made in W.P.No.14417 of 2019, dated 26/4/2019, we are not inclined to accept the contentions. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Judicial Comity is an integral part of judicial discipline and to maintain judicial discipline, the corner stone of the judicial integrity requires that judgments of Coordinate Benches must be respected.

¶88

(i). In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India, reported in 2000 (6) SCC 244, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterated the principle that rulings of Larger Bench should be followed and those of Coordinate Bench of equal strength not to be different from and most be followed.

¶89

(ii). In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has criticised the decisions of Coordinate Benches, which have not followed the earlier judgments by another Coordinate Bench. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC , wherein at paragraph Nos.90 and 91, held thus:-

¶90

“90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The

¶91

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶92

learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. 91. We may add that in our constitutional set-up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law.”

¶93

In view of the above discussion and decisions, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶94

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶95

//True Copy//

¶96

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶97

mvs.

¶98

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶99

¶100