Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vishwa Hindu Parishad vs Collector And District Magistrate, ... on 14 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)ALD260, AIR 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH 173, (2001) 1 ANDHLD 260
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.
2. This case is a classic example of the present day misunderstanding of the term "Secularism" - one of the main pillars of the basic structures of our Constitution - by the public authorities. In their lopsided understanding Secularism means oppressing the religion professed by the majority of the people of this Country and favouring the minority religions.
3. The facts of this case, which are narrated hereunder, bare ample testimony of this:
The petitioner, Viswa Hindu Parishad, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has decided to hold a public meeting on 16-12-2000 in Swarjya Maidan (PWD Grounds) of Vijayawada Town. On 27-10-2000 the petitioner made an application to the Executive Engineer, K.C. Division, Vijayawada, 4th respondent herein, seeking allotment of Bandar Road side portion of the said Maidan (half ground) to conduct a public meeting, undertaking to bear the necessary charges and abide by the conditions, which may be imposed by the respondents. The 4th respondent did not immediately respond. However, by his Proceedings in Rc No.E2/376 / 2000, dated 3-12-2000, the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, 1st respondent herein, communicated his decision to the 4th respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that he, after meeting with the Superintendent of Police, Krishna (2nd respondent herein) and the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada (3rd respondent herein), has decided not to give/ allot public places like Swaraj Maidan, Vijayawada, for any religious meetings. A copy of the said order was communicated and received by the petitioner on 9-12-2000.
4. It is interesting to note that at about the same time, by his Proceedings No.Mc/ 1549, dated 3-11-2000, the 4th respondent, considering the application made by the Treasurer of Maranatha Viswasa Samajam, which is stated to be a Christian Charitable Organization, (hereinafter referred to as "the Samajam" for short) allotted a part of the Swaraj Maidan situated by the side of Mahatma Gandhi Road (Bandar Road) to hold their Kutams (meetings) from 10-1-2001 to 14-1-2001. This order clearly states that the said allotment was made pursuant to the permission granted by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings Rc.No.E2/ 372 /2000, dated 10-10-2000.
5. From the aforementioned facts it is clear that the 1st respondent, who has refused permission to the petitioner-Society to hold a public meeting in Swaraj Maidan on the ground that they have decided not to allot the said Maidan to religious meetings, has thought it fit to grant permission to a Christian Charitable Organisation to hold Kutams in the very same place for five days.
6. All the citizens of this country have a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of our Constitution to assemble peaceably and without arms. Way back in 1961 a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Mahrashtra, , held that the right of the citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from that right in Article 19(1)(b). (See para 31 at page 891 of the Report). This declaration of the law has been quoted with approval by another Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Himatlal v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, , (See Para 33 of the Report).
7. From the aforementioned legal position, it is clear that the citizens of this country have a fundamental right to hold public meeting at public places. It is no doubt true that under Article 19(3) of the Constitution the said right can be regulated by the State by imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right in the interest of Sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. It is, therefore, clear that the right to hold public meetings at public places cannot be denied, but can only be regulated on the ground of public order or in the interest of Sovereignty and integrity of India. Hence, permission to hold a public meeting in a public place cannot be denied on the ground that the proposed meeting is a religious meeting.
8. This legal position will be further clear on a perusal of Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees that "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion". Propagation of one's own religion can only be by holding public meetings. Thus, holding public meetings by persons for propagating their religion is a guaranteed fundamental right under the aforesaid Article. It was so declared by the Supreme Court in Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P., .
9. It may be noted here, that the case of the petitioner herein is that it is not a religious organisation and, therefore, denying permission to it on the ground that it is holding a religious meeting is unsustainable. I am not going into this aspect of the case at this stage, for even if it is assumed that the petitioner-Society is a religious organisation, permission cannot be denied to it for holding a public meeting at the public place in view of the clear constitutional prohibition contained in the aforesaid Article 25(1).
10. There is yet another reason as to why the impugned order is unsustainable. As already noted, the 1st respondent has permitted the Samajam to conduct its Kutams on the part of the very same public place for five days in January, 2001 i.e., from 10th to 14th. But similar permission was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the authorities have decided not to allot the said public place for religious meetings. This, in my view, is nothing but hostile discrimination on the ground of religion.
11. The meaning of the term "Secularism" in the context in which it was employed in the Constitution is that the State shall not interfere in the religious affairs of its people and shall not discriminate on the ground of religion. This is evident even from a plain reading of Article 14, which guarantees to all persons equality before law and equal protection of the laws; Article 25(1), which protects the right of all persons to profess, practise and propagate religion; Article 26, which protects the right of every religious denomination or a section thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage its own matters of religion etc., and Article 28(1), which prohibits religious instruction in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. The impugned order is nothing but a negation of petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 25 of the Constitution. I have, therefore, reached a prima facie conclusion that the impugned Proceeding of the 1st respondent-Collector is unsustainable.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, there shall be an interim direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner-Society to hold public meeting on 16-12-2000, as scheduled, in Swaraj Maidan/PWD Grounds, Vijayawada. The respondents, however, are at liberty to impose such reasonable restrictions, which are essential for keeping public order. The petitioner-Society is also directed to take all such steps, which are necessary to keep public order in the Town. Post on 22-1-2001.