A person’s right to privacy extends beyond their gender and sexual orientation to include their spiritual orientation, as noted by the Madras High Court in a recent ruling. This suggests that everyone has the right to practice their religion in any way they see fit.
“If the right to privacy includes sexual and gender orientation, it certainly includes one’s spiritual orientation also. It is open to a person to express this orientation in the manner he deems fit. Of course, it should not affect the rights and freedoms belonging to others. So long as this rubicon is not crossed, it is not open to the State or the Courts to impinge on one’s action,” the court observed.
Accordingly, Justice GR Swaminathan observed that a man was fully entitled to perform the Angapradakshinam ritual, which entails rolling over the plantain leaves left by other devotees after they have eaten. The court emphasized that he was entitled to continue the practice under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21, and 25(1) of the Constitution.
“It is not open to the court to challenge the belief entertained by the petitioner as regards the spiritual efficacy of the practice ….Performing angapradakshinam on banana leaves after the guests have eaten is an act of high religious worship by Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral’s devotees. This right is protected by Part III of the Constitution of India [Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 21 and Article 25(1)],” the court said.
Background
In 2015, a single Madras High Court judge issued an order prohibiting anyone from conducting the Angapradakshan. Even though the court had its own restrictions on interfering with religious practices and customs, the lone judge declared that no human being could be allowed to be dehumanized by adhering to any practice or custom in the name of religion.
In the present instance, the petitioner had come before the court to ask for authorization to carry out the angapradakshinam. He claimed that he should be able to exercise his unalienable right to practice his religion, but the government informed the court that they had no choice because of the earlier decision.
The panel came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to exercise his fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution to fulfill his religious vows when he felt doing so would improve his spiritual condition after reviewing earlier rulings by the court on religious practices.
Right To Privacy
The right to privacy applied to the circumstances, the court noted. The court went on to say that a person’s right to privacy was inherent in the choices they make about their own lifestyle and that this right did not cease or alter simply because they were in a public place.
The court went on to say that, in addition to walking and driving, angapradakshinam was part of the freedom to travel throughout the country as defined by Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The court further determined that the petitioner’s prayer was superfluous because the petitioner did not require authorization to hold the traditional religious event. The court declared that the petitioner was permitted to perform angapradakshinam and that the authorities could not prevent it. The police had a duty to support the petitioner in exercising his fundamental rights and to remove any barriers that might stand in his way, the court continued.
Earlier Order of Madras High Court
The court observed that the previous high court order that had terminated the practice suffered from the fatal vice of non-joinder of necessary parties because the devotees had not offered a representative plea.
The court noted that behind the backs of the temple trustees and devotees, who had not been given notice or an opportunity to present their case, the lone judge had ordered the authorities to prohibit rolling over on the plantain leaves.
The court further noted that because it was believed that people from other communities rolled over on the used plantain leaves that Brahmins had left behind, the petition was improperly handled under Article 17 of the Constitution. The court observed that participants in Angapradakshinam were devotees from all communities, in contrast to the District Administration’s claims. The court went on to say that the custom implied harmony and social cohesiveness.
Consequently, the court granted the petition and prohibited the government from interfering with the affairs of angapradakshinam.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.Vilavankothai, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.C.Christopher, Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (crl.side)
Name: Gurleen kaur , bba llb ( 6th sem) , st. soldier law college, intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments