Citation: AIR (1983) SCR (1) 729
Bench: Cj Y.V. Chandrachud, J. Bhagwati P.N., J. V. Balakrishna, J. R.B. Misra
INTRODUCTION:
India is a secular country which means that there is no official state religion and the nation will not make distinctions based on religion of a person. Religion although is undefined by the Constitution is also incapable of definition by the judiciary. Article 15 & Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of religion to every citizen as a fundamental right. But merely having this right is of no use if there still exists a scope of numerous conflict between various interest groups and law enforcing bodies which this case from 1983 talks of.
FACTS:
1.One of the finest India’s sage and philosopher was Sri Aurobindo. After having a career in politics and administration, he thought of devoting his life to yoga and meditation at Pondicherry. A French lady named, Madam M. Alfassa joined him as his disciple and came to be known as Mother. Later after, many people across India joined Sri Aurobindo and formed a society in 1960 called Sri Aurobindo Society under West Bengal Registration of Societies Act, 1961.
2.After few years, a new township formed known as the Auroville where people were taught Sri Aurobindo’s teachings. It was recognised by central and state government so they decided to provide funds to the township. UNESCO also extended help in this development seeing it crucial for international relation.
3.In 1970, after Mother Alfassa passed away, there were many cases regarding misappropriation of funds which were registered against the township. Looking at the situation, Central Government took control of administration in its hands and passed a presidential ordinance which later changed into Auroville Emergency Provision Act, 1980 through a writ. This suite was challenged before the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES:
- Whether Parliament had legislative competence to enact the impugned statute?
- Whether Auroville Emergency Provision Act, 1980 violates the constitutional provisions?
CONTENTIONS OF PETITONER:
- It was contended by the petitioner that Auroville (Emergency Provision Act, 1980) is a law that relates to a subject in the State Legislative List and which is why it is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. So it must be declared as unconstitutional and void.
- The impugned Act, according to the prosecution provides for taking over the management of Auroville for a limited period from the Society.
- The management of Auroville before the impugned Act vested in the Governing Body or Board of Trustees of the Society under the Provisions of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act and memorandum along with certain rules and regulations of the Society, as is evident from Sec. 5(5) of the impugned Act itself.
- It was further contended by the petitioners that the proper approach to the question is to look and analyse if the impugned legislation is covered by any of the entries in list II of the Seventh Schedule.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
- It was contended by the Respondents that what is universal cannot be a religious denomination. In order to constitute a separate denomination, there must be something distinct from another.
- A denomination argues the counsel, is one which is different from the other and if the Society was a religious denomination, then the person seeking admission to the institution would lose his previous religion and that he cannot be a member of two religions at one and the same time.
- This is however not the position in becoming a member of the society and Auroville. A religious denomination must necessarily be a new and one new methodology must be provided for a religion.
JUDGEMENT:
Keeping in mind that religion is a matter of faith and belief, Supreme Court decided that the Parliament has legislative power to enact Auroville Emergency Provision Act of 1980. After a deep analysis of Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution and all the prior judicial decisions it is evident that the Auroville Act in any way does not curtail the right of any section of citizen to conserve its own language, script or culture provided by Article 29. The advantage of Art. 30(1) can be grabbed by the community only on proving that it is either a religious or a linguistic minority and that it was that community who established the institution. Also the legal subject of the Act in question does not come under Entry 32 of List II of seventh schedule and it is covered by residuary entry 97 of union list even if not included specifically.
The court while interpreting the meaning of Religious Denomination relied on the case of Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar[1] where they observed that a law which abridges the right of executive from the domain of religious denomination and vests it in other authority would lead to violation of right conferred under Article 26 (d). Court further added that the function of the list in seventh schedule is not to delegate powers. The Act did not incidentally intervene into the areas covered by West Bengal Societies Registration Act of 1961 as it has no relation with Constitution. Thus the legislation is not violative of constitutional provisions.
CONCLUSION:
The present case is crucial in laying down guidelines describing the ambit of ‘Religion’ and ‘Religious Denominations’ and what is included in its meaning. This case took upon itself a very important task of establishing the difference between the interpretations of religion and philosophy. This came as a complex question before professional theologians but even they couldn’t answer it with certainty even after years of study but it was answered with confidence by the Supreme Court within two years. Even then the judiciary’s interpretation regarding religious trend is beyond our assumption. A citizen can exercise his/her right to practice religion as far as it is posing no harm to anybody but before everything else, meaning of religion must be clear and what one must refrain claiming those rights which one has not been conferred with under fundamental right.
[1] Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, AIR (1954) 1 SCR 1005
This article is written by Gargi Nagpal of Alliance School of Law, Bengaluru an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments