Allahabad High Court
Ajay Pratap Singh Son Of Sri Lal Mahendra ... vs Shri A.P. Verma, Chief Secretary, ... on 23 February, 2005
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. This is an application for stay made in aid of appeal preferred from an order dated 1st February, 2005 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
2. The judgment runs into about 12 pages and is reasoned and contains the facts as noted by his Lordship.
3. The appellant concerned is one Ajay Pratap Singh, who is devotee of Lord Shiva. He believes very strongly in the chanting of Mantra which is simple and runs as follows:-
"Om Namah Shivay"
4. He is a prominent member of a religious and charitable society, namely, Lal Mahendra Shiv Shakti Sewa Samiti, Kotwa Kot, Allahabad, the object of which are to establish intoxication free society, to serve the helpless, to help the marriages of poor girls, to help in the education of poor children and to maintain old temples.
5. With the objects of the society, which are helpful and permissible, no one can have any dispute or question.
6. However, Ajay Pratap Singh used to assemble in a park opposite to Laxmi Talkies, Katra situated at Allahabad where there is a Mandir. In the park, he used to chant his Mantra and he would be followed by hundreds of people. The allegation was that the assembly was using loudspeakers with deafening loud noise and that the chanting went on beyond the level of endurance. It was also alleged that the power was being stolen from public line. The further claim was, and this is the crux of the matter, that for a consideration of Rs.30/- per person Ajay Pratap Singh was claiming to cure all ailments of people and was also claiming to be able to mete out treatment for the deaf and dumb. The cure of all ailments would take place by chanting of Mantra following Ajay Pratap Singh is lead and that for curing deaf and dumb one hour would be needed on weekly basis for some period of time.
7. The learned Judge in the Court below sent a committee for examining and report and the committee report is on the record. They have stated that the crowd was running three hundred but was a disciplined crowd. The chanting of the Mantra was indeed made. That Ajay Pratap Singh claimed that there was lowering of the ailments of the people who attended his meetings. There was no evidence of Ajay Pratap Singh distributing any medicine to anybody or writing out any prescription. The persons who attended the congregation included the educated people like gazetted officers, bank employees and railway employees. The feeling of the crowed was also that there was lowering of physical malady from which they suffer.
8. Ajay Pratap Singh, in his affidavit, has denied the allegation of any theft of power. He has denied that Rs.30/- was charged on regular basis from all persons or that there was any compulsion to pay. For the purposes of the membership of the society Rs.30/- might have been charged but according to him on every Thursday the congregation is attended free. It was admitted that at the end of the prayers Prasad would be distributed.
9. On the basis of these facts the learned Judge has passed the following order of injunction:-
(i) That the Samiti including Ajay Pratap Singh is restrained from practising and professing 'Faith Healing' using public parks;
(ii)They are restrained from illegally extracting energy from main line;
(iii)They are restrained from using loudspeakers;
(iv)They are restrained from charging consideration.
10. We make it clear that for the purposes of membership of the society only, charging of consideration is permitted and the learned Judge's order is to be read in this light that the charging of consideration is prohibited for the purpose of faith healing only. This clarification or modification can be taken to have been made by us here-in-now on final basis.
11. In so far as the main issue of faith healing is concerned, it was argued by Mr. R.N. Singh for the appellant that the learned Judge erroneously exercised contempt jurisdiction for the purposes of passing these orders. According to him no criminal contempt was involved and for civil contempt there had to be an allegation of a breach of an order of Court or a breach of undertaking given to Court, both either willingly done or committed. According to him these elements were absent in this case.
12. The argument, if it is seen without the past history of quack practising in the U.P., would seem to be eminently acceptable but the history of quack practice hire has to be kept in mind before this argument is dealt with.
13. The whole thing started with the case of D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P. and Ors.; (2000)5 S.C.C. 80, which concerned quack practice from Agra and in the above judgment, the Supreme Court found widespread quack practice prevailing in U.P. and passed certain directions upon the executive for the purpose of prohibiting and stopping quack practice and saving people from harmful treatment and from being robbed by unscrupulous persons who claimed to be doctors but had no degrees or qualifications.
14. Following the case of D.K. Joshi, certain application had been made by one Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as an interested member of the public. This application was made in the contempt jurisdiction and was made before the Supreme Court itself. By an order passed on 8th October, 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the application but gave liberty to move the High Court for the relief sought.
15. After this application of Sri Srivastava and the said order of the Supreme Court, it has so happened in this State that all disputes of quack practices are being brought before a learned Single Judge who has been allocated the jurisdiction to deal with the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. Person absolutely different from Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, e.g., like the petitioner in the present case, i.e., Smt. Saxena made application in the pending application of Sri Srivastava entitling the application in the matter of Contempt of Courts Act and in the matter of Section 12 thereof. In such application, the question of contempt is hardly gone into but the question that is gone into is the question of prevention of quack practice. The base is the guideline given in the D.K. Joshi's case and the procedure adopted is the above one. There might be flaw and loopholes so far as the technicality of the matter is concerned but nobody would doubt, and certainly we do not doubt, that the matter of prevention of quack practice is certainly an area the where P.I.L. Court does and should wield effective jurisdiction.
16. Challenges have been made in this case regarding exercise of power to prevent quack practice in contempt jurisdiction and in so far as the reported cases are concerned, there is nothing to show that any Court has yet dismissed any anti quack practice application because it is being filed in the contempt jurisdiction. The two cases of Ravindra Kumar Goel (Dr.) and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. and U.P. Nursing Home Association and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. reported in 2005 (55) ALR 807 and 815 respectively, even go to the extent of laying down that even in contempt jurisdiction there is a certain width of discretion which exists in the Court; within permissible width, he passing of the order preventing all quack practice cannot be branded as being passed without jurisdiction.
17. In regard to this aspect of the matter, we cannot penalise the writ petitioner for having approached the first Court in contempt jurisdiction because on the basis of the standing law and binding precedent, it was open to the writ petitioner to approach the High Court for remedies in that manner and indeed if any other jurisdiction has been approached it could well be said that according to the decided cases the approach should have been made in the contempt jurisdiction in Srivastava's case only.
18. However, henceforth we make it clear that the parties would be better advised to deal with quack practice cases only in its true aspect i.e., in the matter of public interest litigation, in other words henceforth quack practice application and preventive order should be sought for not in Srivastava's contempt application, which is historicaly night but logicaly most jarring, but approach should be made directly to the Division Bench, ours at present, where the public interest litigations are entertained on the first day of presentation of writ and application.
19. We are thus unable at present to accept the technical point of Mr. Singh that on the point of jurisdiction we should grant herein now the order of stay.
20. In regard to the substance of the matter it would have to be decided in the appeal and perhaps even in the later stage the application itself when further and fuller affidavits are available before the Court, as to what Ajay Pratap Singh was doing amounted to faith healing or not but this does not relieve us of responsibility of giving our decision today on the materials that we have before us today. The reason why we do not have such relief is this. If we grant an order of stay, the park becomes free for Ajay Pratap Singh's meeting and for doing what he had been doing there so long. Thus if we do grant order of stay, Ajay Pratap Singh comes back free, probably tomorrow, which is Thursday and there he may continue to do what he had been doing so far. If we DO NOT stay, Ajai Pratap stays away from the park, more or less.
21. So far as loudspeaker and illegal drawal of power are concerned, the injunctions are hardly under challenge because it has been alleged that no illegal drawl of power was being made and that in any event the loudspeakers were certainly not used at a deafening level. In that event it would hardly necessary to deal with the above aspect any further. The loudspeakers, which were Soft, need not be used at all, in any event.
22. But the main issue is, what happens to the claim of Ajay Pratap Singh as to the power of chanting of Mantra following his lead, i.e., the question of faith healing.
23. We have already said that Ajay Pratap Singh claims lowering of intensity of the level of disease in the persons who come to his congregation and the persons themselves in the congregation also said that there was such lowering of intensity. We have seen on record two cards which were allegedly distributed on behalf of Ajay Pratap Singh for giving public expression of the claimed power of him and his Mantra. The cards produced by the petitioner is at page 66 and here the claim clearly is that all types of diseases are treated. There is a claim that the deaf and dumb are treated in the evening between 6.00 P.M. To 7.0.0 P.M.
24. Ajay Pratap Singh denied that he is author of this card but according to him one card was indeed distributed. This card states that suffering ("KAST") is being prevented. Claim is made that all types of sufferings are being prevented by Ajay Pratrap Singh. There is again a claim here that for relieving the suffering of deaf and dumb evening treatment would be meted out at Allahabad between 6.00 P.M. to 7.00 P.M.
25. Mr. Singh was at pains to argue that relief from suffering is no claim of relief from any physical ailment or malady. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Kant for the respondents has been at pains to show us that what is being done in substance by Ajay Pratap Singh is no more than quack practice and people came to him for the purpose of getting relief from physical ailment and maladies for which normally persons are to go to qualified doctors and medical practitioners in different streams.
26. We are aware that the present case is a border line one. Freedom of expression and freedom of following one's faith are constitutional guarantees. India is a religious land. The Mantra which Ajay Pratap Singh professes is a sacred one in this land. If that Mantra chanted for spiritual purpose or for other personal purpose which are connected with religion when such use does not interfere with public order and general tranquility of the public, nobody can have objection thereto. The point here is, whether this pure tool i.e. the Mantra, was being used substantially for the purposes which are more mund one than spiritual. The issue is one for assessment all facts and circumstances have to be looked into and all the arguments have to be considered. Doing this as best, as we can to day, we are of the opinion that the claims of Ajay Pratap Singh were being made substantialy on a very mundane and physical level. We have no evidence before us that anybody was coming before Ajay Pratap Singh for the purpose for spiritual uplift alone but we have a lot of allegations, some admitted evidence also, that Ajay Pratap Singh was promising his followers freedom from pain, and suffering caused by physical ailment. Giving relief from Physical ailment, and freedom from the attendant pain and suffering is a job of qualified medical practitioner. One cannot claim to have power of curing or lowering blood pressure and diabetes of People in generate, if they follow his method unless he is a qualified medical practitioner. Ajai Pratap Singh having professed to cure blood pressure and diabetes and other ailments without any medical qualification, he has (SIC) on the field of quack practice.
27. On the basis of above reasoning, we are at present of the opinion that Ajay Pratap Singh has encroached into the area of faith healing, which is but one item of quack practice. We are not at all convinced that he is doing it for illegally; as far as his own approach is concerned, we have found him to be a standard genuine Indian believer. Our observations, however worded, are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the application or in the pending appeal.
28. Apart from the clarification regarding consideration, which we have mentioned above, the stay of operation of the order under appeal is refused. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks and two weeks thereafter. List thereafter expeditiously for final hearing of the application. The appeal may be listed with this application.