COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. versus ACHARYA JAGADISHWARANANDA AVADHUTA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 11-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. 
v. 
ACHARYA JAGADISHWARANANDA AVADHUTA AND ANR. 
MARCH 11, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] B 
Constitution of India-Articles 25 and 26-Right M profess religion-
Meaning of-Held, right extends to rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes 
of worship which are essential or integral part of the religion-Essential or 
integral part-Test for-Held, if taking away the part/practice results in C 
fundamental change in character of the religion/belief, it is an essential/integral 
part/practice-Performance ofTandava dance in public by Ananda Margis-
Held, not an essential/integral part/practice. 
The Ananda Marg is a religious sect within Hindu religion founded 
in 1955. Performance ofTandava dance as a religious rite for the Ananda D 
Margis was introduced around 1966 but there was no such written 
prescription for such dance in Carya Carya, the book containing the 
relevant doctrines of Ananda Margis. The respondent sought permission 
from the appellant to take out a public procession performing Tandava 
dance with skulls, daggers, trident, snakes etc. The appellant refused to E 
grant permission. The order of the appellant was challenged by the 
respondent by way of a writ petition before the Supreme Court under 
Article 32 of the Constitution of India contending that order passed by 
the appellant was violative of rights of the respondent guaranteed under 
Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition filed by 
the respondent was dismissed by the Court by its judgment in Acharya F 
Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta etc. v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and 
Anr., (1984] 1 SCR 447 holding that the performance of Tandava dance 
in public was of a more recent origin than the origin of the sect itself and 
therefore, it cannot be said that the rite was an essential religious rite of 
the sect. The Court further observed that even though Tandava dance may 
be prescribed as a religious rite, there is no prescription for performing G 
the dance in public. The Court did not find any justification for the claim 
that Tandava dance should be performed in public in the religious books 
of the denomination. 
After the judgment, the founder of the denomination, Shri Ananda 
1019 
II 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Murtiji, introduced the prescription of performance of Tandava dance in 
public in the 1986 edition of Carya Carya. The respondent again applied 
for permission to take out a procession. Permission was refused by the 
appellant in terms of judgment of the Court in 1charya Jagdishwarananda 
Avadhuta 's case. Thereafter, the respondent filed another writ petition 
B under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Court. The writ 
petition was disposed of observing that the case should be examined by 
the High Court keeping in view the judgment of the Court in Acharya 
Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta 's case. 
The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the order of the appellant. The Single Judge allowed the writ 
C petition. Upon appeal by the appellant, the Division Bench confirmed the 
findings and order of the Single Judge. 
The appellant filed appeal by way of special leave petition before the 
Court. A Division Bench of the Court was of the opinion that while in 
Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta's case, the Court had observed that 
D Ananda Marg was not a separate religion and therefore, protection of 
Article 25 of the Constitution of India was not available to it, in a 
subsequent judgment of Bijoe Emmanual and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and 
Ors., [1986] 3 SCC 615, the Court had observed that the said finding was 
not a sequiter to the reasoning of the Court and had crept into the 
E judgment of Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta 's case by some slip. The 
Division Bench, finding contradiction between the two judgments, referred 
the matter to a bench of three Judges. 
Before the Court, amongst other grounds, the respondent urged that 
the decision to prohibit Tandava dance in public was violative of Article 
F 
14 of the Constitution of India insofar as other religions and social 
organisations were allowed to take out similar processions in the State. 
G 
The appellant contended that procession taken out by other religions 
was a well established practice of those religions unlike in the case of 
Ananda Margi. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Per majority (S. Rajendra B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.