- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sri Mrinmay Kumar Rath v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai Sub-Division .
Judgment Summary — M.H.S. Ansari, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed W.P. No. 14321(W) of 1999 alleging that a total prohibition had been imposed restricting the taking out of a religious procession, including the immersion ceremony of the Durga deity, through the Zilla Parishad Road. By an order dated 13.10.1999 this Court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) and Sub-Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O.), Contai, to consider the grievance in light of certain Supreme Court authorities and Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Pursuant to that direction the District police authorities examined the matter and issued an order describing two alternative routes from the place of worship to the immersion site (Ranipukur), allowing immersion but restricting use of one of the routes on law-and-order grounds. A subsequent order dated 20.10.1999 granted permission for an immersion procession along a specified route, and the immersion was held.
The petitioner challenged the authorities' order by filing the instant writ application. A Division Bench appointed a Special Officer on 27.10.1999 to inspect the suggested route and report on its suitability. The Special Officer reported that the route suggested by the authorities was not suitable for carrying the idol (citing non-motorability and water-logging) and recorded that authorities apprehended communal trouble if the petitioner's preferred route were used.
The present opinion disposes the writ application after considering the authorities' order, the Special Officer's report, and submissions of counsel for the petitioner.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner was entitled, as a matter of constitutional right under Articles 25 and 26, to take out the religious procession and perform the immersion through the Zilla Parishad Road or through a particular route specified by the petitioner.
- Whether the restriction placed by the District authorities on the use of a particular route (in the interests of peace and communal harmony) was lawful and justified in the circumstances.
- Whether the State authorities acted within the scope of law, having regard to relevant considerations and not acting on extraneous or perverse grounds, such that judicial interference was warranted.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's (Petitioner's) Arguments
- Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Batabyal, argued that the petitioner is entitled to perform the religious duties and to take out the religious procession and immersion ceremony through the Zilla Parishad Road, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Golam Abbas v. State of U.P. and P.K. Roy v. O.C. (as cited in the opinion), and on Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- The petitioner contended in the instant writ that the route formulated by the authorities for immersion was non-existent (i.e., that the permitted route did not exist).
Respondent (Authorities') Position
- The Sub-Divisional Police Officer's order described two routes from the place of worship to Ranipukur: one passing through areas with a large Hindu population and places of worship, the other passing through areas with mosques, idgahs, immambaras and madrashas and denser Muslim localities. The SDPO recorded that both roads were maintained by Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samity and were "more or less similar in nature."
- The authorities granted permission for immersion at Ranipukur but imposed restrictions on the use of a particular route as being necessary to maintain peace and communal harmony, citing past incidents that could have aggravated law-and-order problems.
- The Special Officer reported that the route suggested by the authorities was not suitable for carrying the idol because it was not motorable and had water-logging problems (inspection occurred after heavy rains), and noted that authorities apprehended communal trouble if the petitioner's requested route were adopted. The Special Officer did not report that the petitioner's preferred route was non-existent nor did he comment on that alternative route in detail.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Golam Abbas v. State of U.P. ((1982) 1 SCC 71 : AIR 1981 SC 2198) | Referenced as authority to be kept in view while considering the petitioner's rights under Articles 25 and 26; i.e., that the right to practice religion is subject to restrictions and, where applicable, apprehension of breach of peace is a relevant consideration. | The Court directed the S.D.O. and S.D.P.O. to consider the petitioner's grievance keeping this decision in mind. In its analysis the Court reiterated that Articles 25 and 26 guarantee religious practice but that such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and law-and-order considerations (though such considerations cannot be the sole ground for denial). |
| P.K. Roy v. O.C. (reported in 89 CWN 529) | Referenced alongside Golam Abbas as a judicial authority to be considered when adjudicating the petitioner's claim under Articles 25 and 26 and the permissibility of restrictions when there is apprehension of breach of peace. | The Court instructed the authorities to consider this authority when reviewing the petitioner's entitlement to use a particular route; the opinion reflects the principle that religious rites are protected but may be subjected to necessary restrictions in the interest of public order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by examining (a) the earlier proceedings and directions; (b) the SDPO's order describing the two routes and the reasons for restricting one route; and (c) the Special Officer's inspection report.
Key analytical steps and findings (as expressed in the opinion):
- Contradiction in the petitioner's positions: on the first occasion the petitioner alleged a total prohibition; in the instant petition the petitioner asserted that the route permitted by authorities was non-existent and insisted on a particular route. The Court observed an apparent inconsistency in these stands.
- Scope and content of the Special Officer's report: the Special Officer concluded that the route suggested by the authorities was not suitable for carrying the idol because it was not motorable and suffered water-logging (inspection took place after heavy rains). The report did not state anything adverse about the petitioner's preferred route (i.e., did not state the petitioner's route was non-existent), nor did it expressly compare the two routes in detail.
- Assessment of the impugned order: the SDPO's order recorded that both routes were "more or less similar in nature" and that restrictions had been imposed solely to maintain peace and communal harmony, noting past incidents. The SDPO stated that the petitioner's immersion procession had been allowed (albeit on a restricted route) and that nothing had been done in violation of Articles 25 and 26.
- Judicial review standard: the Court reiterated that judicial review in such matters is circumscribed and is limited to determining whether State authorities acted according to law, took into account relevant considerations, did not base decisions on extraneous matters, and whether the decision is perverse.
- Application of the standard: on the available material, the Court found no convincing support for the petitioner's contention that the permitted route did not exist. The Special Officer's report showed unsuitability of the route he inspected, but did not show that the other road (the petitioner's preferred route) was dissimilar in relevant respects. The Court therefore could not conclude that the authorities had acted unlawfully or perversely on the material before it.
- Academic nature of dispute: because the period covered by the impugned order and the purpose for which permission had been sought had already elapsed, the specific dispute had become largely academic. Nevertheless, anticipating recurrence, the Court chose to give directions for fresh administrative consideration rather than to decide the matter finally on merits.
- Balancing fundamental rights and public order: the Court emphasized that Articles 25 and 26 protect religious rituals and observations integral to religion, but such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of local populations and law-and-order. Importantly, the Court stated that law-and-order concerns alone cannot be the sole factor in denying fundamental rights.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ application is disposed of with observations and the following directions to administrative authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.
Directions and immediate consequences (direct effect on parties):
- The Court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai Sub-Division, to hold a fresh meeting of all concerned and to inspect both routes to ascertain their utility for the procession.
- If, upon inspection, it is found that the route prayed for by the petitioner is the only suitable route, the desirability of granting permission for that route may be considered by the authorities.
- The Court expressly refrained from expressing any final opinion on the merits, leaving the ultimate decision to the statutory authorities, who must take into account all facts and circumstances including law-and-order considerations.
- The administrative exercise was to be completed within three months from communication of a copy of the Court's order, and a reasoned, speaking order was to be communicated to the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due within one week thereafter.
Broader implications: The opinion reiterates established principles that religious practices under Articles 25 and 26 are protected but subject to reasonable restrictions, and that judicial review is limited to assessing legality, consideration of relevant matters and perversity. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new precedent; it disposes the petition by directing further administrative inquiry and compliance with reasoned decision-making.
Result: Writ application disposed of with directions as above; no order as to costs.
M.H.S Ansari, J.:— The petitioner had earlier filed a writ application being W.P No. 14321(W) of 1999 alleging that a total prohibition has been imposed restricting taking out religious procession including immersion ceremony of the Durga deity through the Zilla Parishad Road. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 13.10.1999 with observations and directions as under:—
“Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view, that the S.D.O and S.D.P.O (sic), Midnapore, shall consider the grievance of the petitioner to the effect that allegedly a total prohibition has been imposed restricting taking out religious procession including immersion ceremony of the deity through the Zilla Parishad Road as stated in details in paragraph 4 of the writ application.
The S.D.O and S.D.P.O Contai, shall keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Go/am Abbas v. State of U. P reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71 : AIR 1981 SC 2198 and P.K Roy v. O.C Ramnaoar P.S reported in 89 CWN 529 consider the question upon taking into consideration the right of the petitioner under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India subject to any restriction that may be found necessary to be imposed and if there exists any apprehension of breach of peace, such factor shall also be taken into consideration.”
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondent authorities i.e Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Contai, Midnapore discussed the matter and after hearing the parties present passed an order, relevant portion of which reads as under:—
“Amra Kajan club is celebrating the Durga Puja since 1995 at Fulbani. They applied for permission for immersion of the idol at “Rani Pukur”. From the place of worship of the Goddess Durga there are two road ways one leading to “Rani Pukur” directly, where the immersion of Goddess Durga has been scheduled by the eastern side and is via Chalti, Saraswatipur, Basantia, Rasmandir, Chowdhuribar, Chak Gobindaberia, which is running through the villages where the percentage of Hindu population is large and place of worship for different God and Goddess are by the side of that route. The 2nd road is also connecting place of worship with “Ranipukur” directly and is running from Fulbani via Adaberia, Durgapur Tritiya Khanda, Mukundapur, Paschim Muhammadpur, Choudhuribar, Chakgobindaberia. By the side of 2nd route one market, four Mosques, two Idgahs, two Immambaras and two Madrashas are there. Part of the road is running through Muslim Mahallas and Basti areas which are densely populated. Length and condition of both the roads are more or less same. Both the roads are maintained by Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Sarnity. Sub-Divisional Police Officer has visited both the roadways and found more or less similar in nature. Tire writ petitioner has been allowed the immersion procession at Ranipukur and nothing done against the provision of Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India and restriction imposed on the area of the road, keeping the destination (to Ranipukur) same. Such restriction was imposed which are found necessary in order to maintain peace and communal harmony. Moreover in past some incident happened, made by some miscreants which could have aggravated the law and order situation but that has been stopped forthwith by the administrator. For this reasons the route as prayed by the petitioner in the said w.p had not been allowed from the law and order point of view.”
3. Thereafter on the prayer of the petitioner, permission was granted to hold immersion procession from Fulbari to Basantia, Ranipukur via Chalti, Saraswatipur, Rashi Mancha, Chak Gobindaberia etc. by an order dated 20.10.1999 It appears that pursuant to the said order immersion ceremony was held. However, the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order assailed the same by filing the instant writ application.
4. The division bench before which the matter came up & passed an order dated 27.10.99 appointing a Special Officer to report back to the Court as to his finding and particularly the route suggested by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Contai and whether the same is suitable for carrying the ideol of Goddess Durga for immersion.
5. The Special Officer so appointed by this Court submitted his report after inspecting the same in the presence of the parties concerned. The conclusion arrived at by the Special Officer was that the route as suggested by the authorities is not suitable for carrying the ideol of Goddess Durga for immersion. It is also stated in the report that if the route requested by the petitioner is adopted, the authorities apprehend communal trouble.
6. Before us Mr. Batabyal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that in the light of the said report and keeping in view the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Golam Abbas v. State of U.P reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71 : AIR 1981 SC 2198 and P.K Roy v. O.C Raninagar PS reported in 89 CWN 529 the petitioner is entitled to and should be permitted to perform the religious duties and functions with regard to the religious procession and immersion ceremony through the Zilla Parishad Road.
7. From the narration of facts as above and the observations made in the earlier order of this Court and as also noted, in the interim order of this Court dated 27.10.1999 whereby the Special Officer had been appointed, it will be apparent that on the first occasion the allegation of the petitioner was that a total prohibition had been imposed for conducting the immersion ceremony or taking out the religious procession. In the instant writ application it was contended that the route formulated for immersion of the idol and the procession is non-existent. An apparent contradiction in the stands can be seen.
8. The Special Officer in his report has submitted his views with respect to the route that has been allotted by the District Authorities. He has, however, not stated anything about the route which, according to the petitioner, is entitled to use and which, according to the Police Authorities of the District, is similar in nature.
9. In the impugned order relevant portion of which has been extracted (supra), it appears that the two routes, one, which the petitioner desires to use for the procession and the other, which the authorities have permitted user of, according to the Police authorities both the routes are maintained by Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samity and the same are more or less similar in nature. The petitioner had been allowed the immersion procession, it is stated and nothing was done against or in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is further stated in the impugned order that, the restriction imposed on the user of road was found necessary in order to maintain peace and communal harmony. It is also stated that in the past, some incident happened which could have aggravated into a law and order situation but had been stopped forthwith by the Administration. It is for that reason, it is stated, that the route as prayed for by the petitioner, had not been allowed keeping in view the point of law and order.
10. As already stated (supra) the contention of Mr. Batabyal on behalf of the petitioner that the route as sanctioned or permitted by the District Authorities does not exist is not supported even from the report of the Special Officer. What the Special Officer has stated in his report is his view that the route is not suitable for the procession, the reasons have also been stated therefor, viz., that it is not a moterable route and it has water-logging. The inspection was done after the recent heavy rains as stated in the affidavit-in-reply and further there is nothing in the report to suggest that the other road which the petitioner has prayed for being permitted to be allowed for the procession is not similar to the road which was found to be water-logged at some placed.
11. The scope of the judicial review in such matters is circumscribed by well settled principles, viz., to see whether the State Authorities have acted in accordance with law and while giving the decision in the matter have taken into account relevant matters or based their decision on extraneous matters or that the decision is vitiated by perversity.
12. It is apparent that the contention of the first writ petition was as regards total prohibition imposed for carrying out the religious function which does not appear to be the case. The intention of the petitioner is that he should be allowed to take the procession through a particular route alone and no other route. In the instant writ application it was sought to be contended as has been observed by the division bench in its order dated 27.10.99 that a route permitted to the petitioner does not exist, such does not appear to be the case even from the report of the Special Officer.
13. The period is covered by the impugned order as also the purpose for which the permission had been applied for and rejected by the impugned order having elapsed the question has become one of academic in nature. Also keeping in view that the question will arise in the ensuing year as well and also keeping in view that the report of the Special Officer does not refer to or relate to the route which was permitted by the State authorities to be used for the procession in question, we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ application with certain appropriate directions.
14. This we have thought fit in the facts and circumstances of the case also keeping in view the fact that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India guarantee right to practise and propagate not only matters of faith or belief but also all those rituals and observations which are regarded as integral parts of a religion by the followers of a doctrine.
15. There cannot be a total or complete bar to the taking out of the religious procession. However, the same would be subject to reasonable restrictions keeping in view the larger interest of the people in the localities as also the point of law and order involved in the matter.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai Sub-Division to hold a fresh meeting of all concerned in the matter and to also inspect the two routes in question to ascertain their utility for the purposes of the procession and if it is found that the route prayed for by the petitioner is the only suitable route, than the desirability of the granting permission in respect thereof may be considered. We are, however, expressing no final opinion on this aspect of the matter as it is for the statutory authorities to consider the same taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case including the law and order problem, although it has to be borne in mind that law and order problem alone can not be the sole factor in denying the fundamental right to the Citizen of India. The above exercise shall, however, be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order and the reasoned speaking order shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due.
17. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with observations and directions as above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
18. Petition disposed of.
Alert