Dismissed

Sri Tangirala Paramjyothi S/o Tangirala Joseph, v. The State Of Telangana rep.

Telangana HC2 Mar 2015PIL/45/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged government forms requiring religion disclosure under Article 25. The Court held Article 25 guarantees rights to all persons without qualification and refused to gage that right. Dismissed the PIL on the ground that the matter must be approached individually upon material prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in not recognizing 'no religion' as a form of religion is illegal and arbitrary was dismissed.

Sri Tangirala Paramjyothi S/o Tangirala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.45 OF 2015

¶5

DATED: 02.03.2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Tangirala Paramjyothi … Petitioner and The State of Telangana and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.45 of 2015

¶11

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶12

On the strength of the Bombay High Court judgment, this Public Interest Litigation has been filed asking for a declaration that the action of the second respondent in not recognizing “no religion” as a form of religion, insisting on writing/mentioning/specifying/quoting religion in any of its forms or declarations which are to be filled in by a citizen, further in not issuing orders to all the departments in our State to incorporate the same and not giving any other suitable guidelines as requested in the petitioner’s representation dated 20.10.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that various Government departments prescribed a format wherein the religion of an applicant has to be disclosed. The petitioner says that he has no religion. According to us, this action is premature. If the authority concerned prescribed a format asking for disclosure of religion, it is for the person/individual

¶14

either to disclose or not to disclose. In the event of nondisclosure of the religion, any civil and evil consequence follows; in other words, any affectation of right ensured by the Constitution or law is caused because of non-disclosure, only then action may be taken before competent Court of law. Unless and until such affectation takes place, this sort of litigation shall not be entertained for Article 25 of the Constitution of India clearly provides with qualification that any individual can profess, practice and propagate any religion. According to us this right has been guaranteed unlike Article 19 of the Constitution of India to any person including foreigners. This constitutional right is provided designing to ensure secularism which in our view any person can profess, practice and propagate not only his/her religion other religion also. If any order is passed as prayed for by this Court then, according to us, it would be gagging of fundamental right of whole Section of people. As we say, this matter can be looked into individually. Therefore, when such cause arises, the petitioner will be free to approach individually before appropriate forum.

¶15

The Public Interest Litigation is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶17

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶18

2^nd MARCH, 2015.

¶19

__________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶20

kvni

Sri Tangirala Paramjyothi S/o Tangirala Joseph, v. The State Of Telangana rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tangirala Paramjyothi S/o Tangirala Joseph, v. The State Of Telangana rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation

Bakka Judson S/o Bakka Devaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Nagam Janardhna Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

K. Yadhi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Revenue Department

Chama Pratap Reddy S/o Yadagiri Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by the

P. Gangadhar S/o Nagaraju Vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam

The Schedule Castes Reservation Parirakshana Samithi, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

G.C. Penchalaiah S/o Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh