The Bombay High Court has directed the State “not to compel any individual to declare of specify his religion in any form or any declaration.” The Court also pronounced that by the virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, every individual has the right to say that he does not belong to any religion or does not practice any religion.
The judgment was given after a public interest litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court, contending that a citizen has a right to claim that he does not belong to any religion. The petitioners in the case were members of Full Gospel Church of God” and they claimed that they believed in existence of Lord Jesus but did not believe in Christianity. They had also contended that Lord Jesus never intended to form any religion and that bible is entirely silent about religion.
The State of Maharashtra had opposed the petition and submitted to the Court “that “No religion” cannot be treated as form of religion.”
Dr. Ranjeet Suryakant Mohite,
2. Kishore Ramakant Nazare, and
3. Subhash Suryakant Ranaware.
Vs
The Union of India, and
The State of Maharashtra.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.139 OF 2010
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 23RD SEPTEMBER 2014
Notice for final disposal at the admission stage was issued
on 12th March 2014. A very interesting issue is raised by the Petitioners.
The contention of the Petitioners is that the State cannot compel any
citizen to disclose his religion while submitting forms and/or
declarations. The contention is that a citizen has a right to claim that
he does not believe in the philosophy of any religion and therefore, he
does not practice or profess any religion. The contention in short is that
The Petitioners claim to be the members of a registered
2.
a citizen can always claim that he belongs to “No Religion”.
organization by the name “Full Gospel Church of God” which is stated
to have more than 4,000 members. The Union of India and the State of
Maharashtra are the Respondents. The case made out in the Petition is
that the said organization does believe in the existence of Lord Jesus
Christ, but does not believe in any religion much less Christianity. The
contention of the Petitioners is that the said organization believes that
the Lord Jesus Christ desired to have a kingdom of heaven and did not
intend to form any religion. The contention of the Petitioners is that the
holy bible is entirely silent about the religion.
3.
The Petitioners claim that they made an Application to the
State Government Printing Press for notifying the change of religion.
They wanted a gazette notification to be issued recording that they are
not the Christians but they belong to “No Religion”. The Applications
were rejected by the Government Printing Press. That is the cause of
Petition is Prayer Clause (A), which reads thus:
action for filing the present Petition. The only substantive prayer in the
“(A) That this Honorable Court be pleased to issue
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction thereby directing the respondents
to recognize “No Religion” as a form of religion and
not to insist on writing/mentioning/specifying/
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
4.
quoting religion in any of its forms or declarations”.
Petitioners is based on the Article 25 of the Constitution of India. His
submission is that the State cannot compel any citizen to disclose his
religion inasmuch as there is a freedom conferred by the Constitution
on every citizen to claim that he does not practice or profess any
religion. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in
the cases of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi and others v. State of Bombay and
others1 and S.P
. Mittal v. Union of India and others2. He pointed out that
various authorities of the State require the citizens and even students to
fill up various forms for various purposes. He submitted that against
the column of religion, a citizen who is filling up the form has a right to
state that he belongs to “No Religion”.
1
2
AIR 1954 SC 388
AIR 1983 SC 1
5.
The learned AGP representing the Government of
Maharashtra and the learned counsel representing the Union of India
invited the attention of the Court to Prayer Clause (A). Their
submission is that “No Religion” cannot be treated as a religion or a
form of religion. Their submission is that a Prayer Clause (A) as
We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It
6.
framed can never be granted.
will be necessary to make a reference to the Article 25 of the
Constitution of India, which reads thus:
“25. Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion. (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.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation
of any existing law or prevent the State from making
any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic,
financial, political or other secular
activity which may be associated with
religious practice;
(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.
Explanation I.
The wearing and carrying of
kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the
profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II. In subclause (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.”
Conscience can be defined as moral sense of right or wrong
as applied to one's own judgment and actions. In the case of Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi and others v. State of Bombay and others, the
Apex Court considered the concept of religion. The Apex Court held
thus:
“12. The moot point for consideration, therefore, is
where is the line to be drawn between what are
matters of religion and what are not? Our
Constitutionmakers have made no attempt to define
“what religion” is and it is certainly not possible to
frame an exhaustive definition of the word “religion”
which would be applicable to all classes of persons. As
has been indicated in the Madras case referred to
above, the definition of “religion” given by Fields, J. in
the American case of Davis v. Beason1 does not seem
to us adequate or precise. “The term ‘religion'” thus
observed the learned Judge in the case mentioned
above, “has reference to one's views of his relations to
his Creator and to the obligations they impose of
reverence for His Being and character and of
obedience to His Will. It is often confounded with cults
or form of worship of a particular sect, but is
distinguishable from the latter”. It may be noted that
“religion” is not necessarily theistic and in fact
there are well known religions in India like
Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in the
existence of God or of any Intelligent First Cause. A
religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs
and doctrines which are regarded by those who
profess that religion to be conducive to their spiritual
well being, but it would not be correct to say, as seems
to have been suggested by one of the learned Judges
of the Bombay High Court, that matters of religion are
nothing but matters of religious faith and religious
belief. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or
belief. It has its outward expression in acts as well”.
(Emphasis added )
In the case of Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu and others
v. State of A.P and another3, the Apex Court in Paragraph 14 held thus:
“14. Article 25, as its language amplifies, assures to
every person subject to public order, health and
morality, freedom not only to entertain his religious
beliefs, as may be approved of by his judgment and
conscience, but also to exhibit his belief in such
outwardly act as he thinks proper and to propagate or
disseminate his ideas for the edification of others.“
The Apex Court in the case of Commr. of Police and others v.
Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and another5 observed thus :
“76. 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
to freely profess, practise and propagate
religion, save those imposed under the
police power of the State and the other
provisions of Part III 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 of 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.
3 (1996)8 SCC 705 at page 722
5 (2004)12 SCC 770 at page 802
Though the freedom of conscience and religious
belief are absolute, the right to act in exercise of
a man’s freedom of conscience and freedom of
religion cannot override public interest and
morals of the society and in that view it is
competent for the State to suppress such
religious activities which are prejudicial to
public interest”.
( Emphasis added )
7.
77.
Clause (1) of Article 25 of the Constitution of India is in
two parts. The first part confers fundamental right to freedom of
ig
conscience. The second part confers a right on a citizen to freely
profess, practice or propagate any religion. We have already discussed
the concepts of conscience and religion. The term religion cannot be
necessarily theistic. Apart from the freedom of conscience, there is a
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Articles 19 and
25 confer a freedom of conscience on a citizen which is a fundamental
right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As far as the freedom of
speech and expression is concerned, it guarantees the freedom to an
individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall
say. India is a secular democratic republic. The State has no religion.
There is a complete freedom for every individual to decide whether he
wants to adopt or profess any religion or not. He may not believe in
any religion. If he is professing a particular religion, he can give up the
religion and claim that he does not belong to any religion. There is no
law which compels a citizen or any individual to have a religion. The
freedom of conscience conferred by the Constitution includes a right not
to profess, practice or propagate any religion. The right of freedom of
conscience conferred on a citizen includes a right to openly say that he
does not believe in any religion and, therefore, he does not want to
practice, profess or propagate any religion. If the parents of a citizen
practice any particular religion, he has a freedom of conscience to say
that he will not practice any religion. There is a freedom to act as per
8.
his conscience in such matters.
Freedom of conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution
encompasses in itself a freedom to an individual to take a view that he
does not belong to any religion. The freedom conferred by Article 25
of the Constitution also includes a right of an individual to claim that he
is an 'Atheist'. As the freedom of conscience confers a fundamental
right to entertain a religious belief, it also confers a right on an
individual to express an opinion that he does not belong to any religion.
9.
No authority which is a State within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution of India or any of its agency or instrumentality
can infringe the fundamental right to freedom of conscience. Any
individual in exercise of right of freedom of conscience is entitled to
carry an opinion and express an opinion that he does not follow any
religion or any religious tenet. He has right to say that he does not
believe in any religion. Therefore, if he is called upon by any agency or
instrumentality of the State to disclose his religion, he can always state
that he does not practice any religion or he does not belong to any
religion. He cannot to be compelled to state that he professes a
particular religion.
10. The prayer made in this Petition is to direct the Respondents
to recognize “No Religion” as a form of religion. When an individual
says that he does not practice or profess any religion, he does not
belong to any religion or any religious sect. The other part of the
Prayer Clause (A) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents
not to insist on writing/mentioning/specifying/quoting religion in any
of its forms or declarations which are to be filled in by a citizen. No
individual can be compelled to state that he belongs to a particular
religion, though he does not practice or profess the said religion. He
has a fundamental right to state that he does not profess or practice any
religion and, therefore, what follows is the second part of the Prayer
Clause (A) which will have to be granted. Therefore, the Government
Printing Press cannot deny request of a citizen to declare in the gazette
that he does not belong to any religion.
11.
Therefore, the Petition must succeed and we pass the
following order:
ORDER :
We issue a writ of mandamus directing the
(a)
Respondents not to compel any individual to declare
or specify his religion in any form or any
declaration;
We declare that by virtue of Article 25 of the
(b)
Constitution of India, every individual has right to
claim that he does not belong to any religion and
that he does not practice or profess any religion;
(c)
(d)
The order of the Government Printing Press is set
aside to that extent;
The Petition is allowed on above terms.
( A.S.CHANDURKAR, J )
( A.S. OKA, J )
No comments:
Post a Comment