Latest News
Back
Document:
Alokam Sudhakar Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of free profession, practice, and propagate religion. The Constitution of India envisages a secular model and provides that every person has the right and freedom to choose and practice any religion. In Kesavananda Bharti case, the apex court has held that secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution. But Rule 136 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindus Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 states that non-Hindus can only be allowed inside the temple if they have been granted the permission. Secularism? Are the rules in violation of Article 25? The High Court of Andhra Pradesh gave a different opinion.
Facts:
The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Yeduguri Sandinti Jaganmohan Reddy had visited Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Temple to respect the state tradition for years i.e. to invite the serving Chief Ministers for offering prayers in the temple to present “Pattu Vastralu” during Brahmotsavam.
The State of Andhra Pradesh made an enactment called “the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Acts, 1987 in the exercise of its legislative power conferred under the constitution. Rule 136 of rules made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 97 R/w 153 of the Act, 1987 concerning the admission of non-Hindus into Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams temples.
The petitioner Alokam Sudhakar Babu, who is a resident of Vaikuntapuram Village, Amaravati Mandal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ, Order or direction to show under what authority the respondents are holding their respective posts and consequently, restraining them from continuing. The petitioner also contends that the respondent's visit to the temple after being a Chief Minister has become a controversy and affects the sentiments of Hindu religion people.
The petitioner also submits that under the Act, a non-Hindu must furnish a declaration under Rule 136 before entering inside the temple only if the permission is granted to be allowed. Such a condition was imposed and is a reasonable restriction and to maintain the sanctity of the people who visit the century-old temple. The petitioner alleges that the respondent is no complying with the state laws and also encouraging other cabinet ministers to violate the same.
The Learned Advocate General for the state submitted that the pleadings of the Writ Petition do no demonstrate any disqualification incurred by the respondent under Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The AG submitted that the action of the respondent in the capacity of a public servant will not constitute as disqualifications listed under Article 191.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner demonstrated before this court by placing appropriate and relevant material to substantiate his contention that the 5th respondent is professing Christian religion or not?
- Whether there is any substantial material placed before this court by the petitioner to issue a writ of Quo-Warranto against the respondents?
- Whether this court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and to remove a person from the office of Chief Minister/ Minister in the exercise of its power under Article 22 of the Constitution of India?
Judgement:
A Single Judge bench headed by Justice Battu Devanand of Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition of quo warranto against the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, and other Cabinet Ministers.
The primary objection of the petitioner was that Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, who profess Christianity, had entered into the temple without furnishing the required declaration thereby violating the law of the State and he is not entitled to continue in the present post as he is holding.
The court while interpreting Article 25 of the Constitution was of the view that, the individual right guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public order, health, and morality.
The Court also cleared that every person has a fundamental right not merely to entertain such beliefs but to exhibit his belief and ideas as sanctioned by this religion and propagate his views for the edification of the others.
The court observed Article 191 which provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. The single bench ruled out that the present case does not fall under the disqualifications provided under Article 191 of the Constitution.
For the declaration under Rule 136, the court interpreted the meaning of “professing a religion” and who is a “Hindu”. The High Court relied on the case backdated in the year 1965, in Punjabrao vs Dr. D.P.Meshram and ors, the Hon’ble Supreme court had discussed “professes a religion”. The Supreme court held that it means to admit publicly or to declare one’s belief, to profess any religion publicly.
The Court relied on Sastri Yagnapurushadji & ors V. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya & ors, for the point of the meaning of being a “Hindu”. The court described that the Hindu religion is a way of life-based on basic concepts. The court while interpreting who is a “Christian” and “professing Christian religion”, relied on Section 3 Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. It read as “Christians” means, person professing the Christian religion and “Native Christians” means the Christian descendants of Natives of India converted to Christianity as well as such other converts.
The Court did not entertain the allegations made by the petitioner that the respondent belongs to the Christian religion. The court dismissed the argument of the petitioner that the respondent is attending Christian Gospel conventions and he is also offering prayers in Churches and he has to be considered as Christian. The court argued that the same respondent has offered prayers at Gurudwara at Vijayawada, but he is not professing the “Sikh” religion. One does not become a “Christian” just by having a biblical name or just by attending Gospel conventions, just like one cannot be called a Christian just because he has read the Bible or have the Crucifix in their house.
The Court also made it clear that when a person who is holding the post of Chief Minister was invited by the Trust Board of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Temple to present “Pattu Vastralu” during Brahmotsavam. The respondent had entered inside the temple in the capacity of the Chief Minister of the State, as a public servant, and a representative of the people of the state, and he does not have to submit a declaration provided under Rule 136 of the Rules.
Conclusion:
India, being a secular state is recognized by a diversity of religious beliefs and practices. Throughout history, religion is the most important part of the country’s culture. The Constitution provides that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but it is not an absolute one. These rights may not be an absolute right but subject to reasonable restrictions. The rules formed by the state of Andhra Pradesh to avert the feelings of disrespect towards Lord Shri Venkateshwara Swamy if a non-Hindu is entering without a declaration are wrong. This just makes it a requirement to enlighten the fact of diversified people who are coming to the shrine of the temple to submit his prayers before he submits a declaration.
Document:
