- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Satya Ranjan Majhi And Another v. State Of Orissa And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Orissa High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2 and 7 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989. The High Court dismissed the petition. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition (SLP). The Supreme Court first condoned the delay in filing the SLP and thereafter proceeded to examine the merits of the challenge.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Sections 2 and 7 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989 are unconstitutional.
- Whether sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, inserted by Notification No. 63286 dated 26-11-1999, is ultra vires the parent Act and the Constitution.
- Whether a new ground (the validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5) can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not specifically urged before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended before the High Court that Rules 4 and 5 exceeded the rule-making power conferred by Section 7 of the Act and were therefore ultra vires.
- Before the Supreme Court, counsel attempted to assail sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 (inserted in 1999), alleging its invalidity, although this specific contention had not been raised in the High Court.
Respondent-State's Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., (1977) 1 SCC 677; AIR 1977 SC 908 | Article 25(1) protects the right to “propagate” one’s religion but not to convert another; no fundamental right to convert. | Relied on to reaffirm that the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act is a valid legislation aimed at maintaining public order, thereby supporting dismissal of the petitioners’ challenge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the validity of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act had already been upheld in Rev. Stainislaus. It reiterated the principle that Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen, and therefore no fundamental right to convert another person exists.
Addressing the petitioners’ new attack on sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, the Court held that the issue had not been specifically raised before the High Court. Because adjudicating vires often requires the State an opportunity to justify the rule on grounds such as public order, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the argument for the first time at the appellate stage.
The Court further observed that the mere fact that Rule 5 contemplates an inquiry does not render it invalid. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the SLP.
Holding and Implications
SLP DISMISSED.
The dismissal leaves the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and its Rules, including the 1999 amendment to Rule 5, intact and enforceable. No broader constitutional precedent was set; the Court primarily reaffirmed existing authority from Rev. Stainislaus and declined to entertain new grounds not raised below.
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. By means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenged Sections 2 and 7 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”) and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”). The petition was dismissed by the Orissa High Court. It is against the said order and judgment, the petitioners are before us by means of this special leave petition.
3. It may be noted that this Act has been held to be a valid piece of legislation by this Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P (1977) 1 SCC 677, AIR 1977 SC 908 wherein it has been held as under:
“19[20]. We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word ‘propagate’ has been used in Article 25(1), for what the article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees ‘freedom of conscience’ to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the ‘freedom of conscience’ guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike.”
4. Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, it was observed that:
“What is freedom for one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion.”
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, before us sought to assail sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules which has been inserted by Notification No. 63286 dated 26-11-1999. The impugned judgment does not show that the vires of the aforementioned provision was specifically mooted. Before the High Court, the principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that the said Rules are ultra vires the rule-making power contained in Section 7 of the Act. The High Court has dealt with the matter in para 5 of its judgment. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the petitioners before the High Court, but we do not find any specific ground questioning the said rule other than the one mentioned hereinbefore as raised before the High Court. Furthermore, the question as to whether a rule is ultra vires or not, must be adjudged having regard to public order in mind. Had such a contention been raised, the State would have justified the making of the order, inter alia, on the ground of maintenance of public order. Such contention, therefore, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court.
6. Merely because an inquiry is contemplated under Rule 5, it does not ipso facto make the rule invalid. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the special leave petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Court Masters
Alert