Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Two Advocates Jayakumar T.V. and Mansoor B.H. filed a Public interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court of Kerala. The PIL demanded the High Court revoke the orders passed by the State Government, allowing the gathering of a maximum of 100 people in any religious place. The two advocates sought the intervention of the High Court in this matter as they were of believe that the State Government is not acknowledging the norms issued by the Central Government on the matter of mass gathering. The petitioners argued that the step taken by the State is illegal and unconstitutional. The petition was filed by the two advocates by relying upon the announcement made by the Central Government, stating that no State is competent to permit any religious gathering, by fixing the maximum limit as 100 as there is an absolute bar on such assemblies.
The Additional Advocate General, representing the State argued before the High Court that the State Government did not violate any norms circulated by the Central Government as there is a fine difference between the religious gathering in the society and religious gathering in the place of worship. The respondent further argued that worshippers have to maintain a distance of at least six feet between them, and all the necessary measures and norms set up by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare will be followed by the authorities of all religious places.
The High Court bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly were of opinion that when the Central Government issued the guidelines regarding the “Unlock”, the guidelines made it quite clear that the Central Government did not intend to restrict the States from assigning the maximum number of worshippers in the religious place, if the government had the desire of doing so, the guidelines must have acknowledged this.
Hence, the High Court bench dismissed the PIL and added:
“We cannot be oblivious of the fact that Mass in a Church is conducted at a particular time, prayer in a Mosque is performed at a particular time and so also worship in a temple. One will have to give a meaningful intent when the Central Government has issued guidelines for opening activities in religious places, whether a person belongs to it is Hindu/Muslim/Christian or any other religion. Though contentions are made on bona fide of the petitioners, who are advocates, we are not inclined to delve into the same. Contentions that there is an absolute bar on religious assembly is not accepted.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824