LAW

Supreme Court on 'Religion' and Religious Freedom

A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu, Petitioner v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, Respondents.

K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.

Constitution of India, Article 25 Religious freedoms-Scope and ambit - Spiritual religion and religionism Religionism not always necessary for spiritual religion Law seeking to separate non- essential from essential - Not unlawful but visionary.

Religious freedom - Dharma or Hindu Dharma- Connotation-Constitution protects the core religion.

The word 'Dharma' or 'Hindu Dharma' denotes upholding, supporting, nourishing that which upholds, nourishes or supports the stability of the society, maintaining social order and general well-being and progress of mankind; whatever concludes to the fulfillment of these objects is Dharma, it is Hindu Dharma and ultimately 'Sarva Dharma Sambhava'. In contradistinction, Dharma is that which springs from due deliberation for one's own happiness and also for welfare of all being free from fear, desire, disease, (for) good feelings and sense of brotherhood, unity and friendship for integration of Bharat. This is the core religion which the Constitution accords protection.

A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs and doctrine which are regarded by those who profess religion to be conducive to their spiritual well- being. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has outward expression in acts as well. It is not every aspect of religion that has been safeguarded by Articles 25 and 26 nor has the Constitution provided that every religious activity cannot be interfered with. Religion, therefore, be construed in the context of Article 25 and 26 in its strict and etymological sense.... Secular activities and aspects do not constitute religion which brings under its own cloak every human activity. The approach to construe the protection of religion or matter of religion or religious practices guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 must be viewed with pragmatism since by the very nature of things, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define the expression religion or matters of religion or religious belief or practice.

Therefore, the right to religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 is not an absolute or unfettered right to propagating religion which is subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity economic, financial, political or secular-which are associated with religious belief, faith, practice or custom. They are subject to reform or social welfare by appropriate legislation by the State. Though religious practices and performances of acts in pursuance of religious beliefs are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in a particular doctrine, that by itself is not conclusive or decisive. What are essential parts of religion or religious belief or matters of religion and religious practice is essentially a question of fact to be considered in the context in which the question has arisen and the evidence - factual or legislative or historic - presented in that context is required to be considered.

Scope and ambit - Religious practice - Whether is integral part of religion to be primarily ascertained from doctrines of that religion - Concept of essentiality is not itself determinative of the question.

.

All secular activities which may be associated with religion but which do not relate or constitute an essential part of it may be amenable to State regulations but what constitutes the essential part of religion may be ascertained primarily from the doctrines of that religion itself according to its tenets, historical background and change in evolved process etc. The concept of essentiality ...Word 'religion' in Articles 25, 26-To be is not itself a determinative factor. It must be decided construed in its strict and etymological sense - Every whether the practices or matters are considered integral aspect of religion is not safeguarded by Constitution. by the community itself. Though not conclusive, this is also one of the facets to be noticed.

(Source: The AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1765)

Supreme Court on TADA - Effect of Expiry and Scope

State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc., Appellants v. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc., Respondents.

A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.L., B.L. Hansaria and S.C. Sen, JJ.

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987), Section 1(4) - Expiry of Act - Effect- Investigations, enquiry, trial initiated under Act-Do not come to end on expiry of Act Section 1(4) protects and keep them alive.

Sections 3(3), 2(1)(a)(iii) - Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Sections 228, 240, 245-Abetment of terrorist act- Criminal conspiracy to commit bomb blasts in Bombay - Accused charged off, on ground that he booked tickets out of his own funds of some persons to undergo weapon training to Pakistan - Allegation of funding of tickets by accused based merely on credit entry made in name of accused by booking agency in its account books - It is a weak circumstance to infer abetment - Accused entitled to be discharged.

(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1746)