The right to propagate, profess and follow different faiths is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, however, indisputably, such right is also circumscribed by certain limitations, such that it may not endanger public peace and order, the Madras high court has said. Justice V Parthiban made the observation

APP
CITY
HC directs to process plea to conduct prayers after consulations
Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Mar 17, 2021, 04:25 IST
+1
AA

Madurai: The right to propagate, profess and follow different faiths is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, however, indisputably, such right is also circumscribed by certain limitations, such that it may not endanger public peace and order, the Madras high court has said.
Justice V Parthiban made the observation while directing officials of the Kanyakumari district administration to conduct an inquiry and process an application filed by Rev J Devadhason seeking permission to conduct religious prayers in his building at Neendakarai village at Agastheeswaram taluk in the district. The court said that the application should be processed after calling for reports from the the officer in charge of maintenance of law and order in Kanyakumari district.
Permission was rejected by the district collector after obtaining reports from the sub-collector and the superintendent of police who had concluded that granting permission to the petitioner to conduct prayers towards promotion of his faith would affect public peace and would also pose law and order problems.

Challenging the rejection order, the petitioner had filed the present petition.
Justice V Parthiban observed that when peaceful religious activities could be carried on without affecting public order and peace, the same cannot be prohibited for an indefinite period of time citing the Mandaikadu communal riots which took place as early in 1982. Admittedly, there has been no riot or any communal clashes in the area, since 1982.
“This fact would demonstrate that people in the district following different faiths have been maintaining cordiality, not succumbing to and falling prey to machination or subterfuge of certain vested interests,” observed the judge.
Quoting Albert Camus, a great 20th Century French writer, ‘Democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of minority’, the judge observed that it is for the administrators to take a comprehensive decision in such sensitive matters and at the same time, the petitioner cannot be denied his right to carry on his legitimate religious worship of his faith.
“A delicate balance may have to be maintained as between the public order and peace on one hand and citizens’ fundamental right to worship and propagate their faith in tune with the Constitutional scheme,” observed the judge.