- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Albert Raj v. Distt. Collector
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner in W.P No. 16804 of 2003 sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the first respondent's order dated 31.3.2002 (RC. No. 66444/99 (C3)) and to direct permission for constructing the Panavilai C.S.I Church Building in R.S No. 183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District. In W.P No. 21187 of 2005, the petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to restrain respondents from obstructing marriages conducted at the Panavilai C.S.I Church.
Planning permission for the church construction had already been sanctioned by the third respondent and supported by a Revenue Divisional Officer's report dated 11.11.1999. However, the District Collector rejected the permission on the ground that only a few C.S.I Christians lived in the hamlet of Panavilai. The first respondent's impugned order noted the proximity of a Hindu Temple 198 feet from the proposed church site.
The writ petitions were taken up for hearing by consent.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the impugned order dated 31.3.2002 rejecting permission to construct the church building was illegal and unconstitutional.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection against obstruction in conducting marriages at the Panavilai C.S.I Church.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| W.P No. 5202 of 1998 (Division Bench order dated 14.7.2005) | Affirmation of secularism and equality under Articles 14 to 18 and freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. | The court applied this precedent to emphasize that the right to freely profess and practice religion is fundamental and not dependent on the number of adherents in a locality, reinforcing that India is a secular state where all religions have equal status. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the impugned order by the District Collector rejecting construction permission was based on an unsustainable reason—the small number of C.S.I Christians in the area. The Court emphasized the constitutional guarantee under Article 25(1) of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject only to public order, morality, and health.
The Court relied on the Division Bench’s earlier ruling in W.P No. 5202 of 1998, which underscored India’s secular character and the equal status of all religions, rejecting any notion that one religion could claim superiority or exclusivity in the country.
Applying these principles, the Court found the impugned order illegal and unconstitutional, as it infringed on the fundamental rights of the petitioner without valid justification. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order.
Regarding the second writ petition seeking protection from obstruction in conducting marriages, the Court dismissed it as unnecessary in light of the quashing of the impugned order in the first petition.
Holding and Implications
W.P No. 16804 of 2003 is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.3.2002 passed by the first respondent is quashed.
W.P No. 21187 of 2005 is dismissed as infructuous following the disposal of the first petition. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The decision directly restores the petitioner’s right to construct the church and conduct religious ceremonies without unlawful obstruction. The Court reaffirmed constitutional secularism and the fundamental right to freedom of religion but did not establish any new precedent beyond the application of existing constitutional principles.
1. Heard both sides.
2. By consent, the writ petitions are taken for hearing.
3.1 In W.P No. 16804 of 2003, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 31.3.2002 in RC. No. 66444/99 (C3) and quash the same as illegal and unlawful and direct the first respondent to accord permission to construct the Panavilai C.S.I Church Building in R.S No. 183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District.
3.2 In W.P No. 21187 of 2005, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 5 or their subordinates or anybody claiming under them from disturbing or obstructing from conducting marriages in Panavilai C.S.I Church in Kanyakumari District.
4. Concededly, planning permission for construction of the Panavilai C.S.I Church Building in R.S No. 183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District was already sanctioned by the third respondent in W.P No. 16804 of 2003 and the same is also supported by the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.11.1999 However, by the impugned proceedings dated 31.3.2002, the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, on unsustainable reason, namely there are only a few C.S.I Christians in the hamlet of Panavilai, rejected the permission for construction of the Church Building. Even as per the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 31.3.2002, a Hindu Temple is located at the distance of 198 feet away from the proposed Church Building.
5. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India states that 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.
6. That apart, the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 14.7.2005 made in W.P No. 5202 of 1998, held as follows:
“…..13. This is a free, democratic and secular country. In our country people of all religions, castes and communities are equal under the Constitution, vide Articles 14 to 18, and they have a right freely to practice their religion, vide Article 25. This country does not belong to Hindus alone. It belongs equally to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, etc., and all are equal under the law. Also, it is not that only Hindus can live in this country as first rate citizens while others can live only as second rate citizens. That is not so. In our country all citizens are, and are entitled to live, as first rate citizens. It is the greatness of our Founding Fathers who made the Constitution that at the time of Independence in 1947 when the sub-continent was engulfed in religious madness they insisted that our country shall not be declared as a Hindu State, but shall be a secular State. This was indeed a very difficult thing to do at that time, because when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool mind. There must have been tremendous pressure on our Founding Fathers to declare India a Hindu State, particularly since Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic State. It is the greatness of our Founding Fathers that they kept a cool mind and resisted these pressures, and provided for a Secular State in India under our Constitution.
14. A basic feature of India is that it is a country with tremendous diversity having so many religions (including their different sects), castes (including hundreds of sub-castes), communities, languages, ethnic groups, etc. Hence, the only policy that can work in this country, and keep it united and on the path of progress is the policy of secularism and giving equal respect to all religions, castes, ethnic groups, communities, languages, cultures, etc. Without such a policy our country cannot survive for long.”
7. In view of the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under our Constitution, viz., freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, which right is not restricted or qualified with reference to the number of persons living in a particular locality and applying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 14.7.2005 made in W.P No. 5202 of 1998, I find that the impugned order dated 31.3.2002 passed by the first respondent is illegal, unconstitutional and is therefore liable to be quashed. Hence W.P No. 16804 of 2003 is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.3.2002 passed by the first respondent is quashed.
In view of the order passed in W.P No. 16804 of 2003, no further orders are required in W.P No. 21187 of 2005 and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P Nos. 23092 and 25430 of 2005 are closed.
Alert