Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

On 17^th May 2024, in the matter of P. Naveen Kumar v. The District Collector and Ors the Madras High Court reinstated the religious practices of "annadhanam" and "angapradakshanam" at Nerur Sathguru Sadasiva Brahmendral's final resting place, overturning a 2015 ban. Justice G.R. Swaminathan's ruling invoked Article 25(1) of the Constitution, extending the right to privacy to include "spiritual orientation." This decision raises questions about the balance between religious freedom, public health, and state intervention in religious matters, while potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving religious practices and constitutional rights. 

What is the Article 25 of Indian Constitution? 

• This Article deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. It states that- 
  • (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. 
  • (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law. 
    • (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. 
    • (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus 
    • Explanation I - The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion 
    • Explanation II - In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 
• It covers not only religious beliefs but also religious practices. 
• These rights are available to all persons—citizens as well as non-citizens. 

What is the Background of P. Naveen Kumar v. The District Collector and Ors ? 

• The writ petitioner is a resident of Karur District and a devotee of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral, a renowned saint of Tamil Nadu. 
• The case concerns religious practices at Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral's final resting place in Nerur Village. 
• The Jeeva Samadhi Day of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral is traditionally marked by "Annadhanam" (sacred offering of food) and other religious rituals. 
• A significant ritual, practiced for approximately 120 years, involved devotees performing "Angapradakshinam" (rolling over) on banana leaves used by other devotees for consuming food. 
• This practice was halted in 2015 due to a prior court order. 
• The petitioner had taken a vow to perform this religious service for the upcoming Jeeva Samadhi Day, scheduled for 18th May 2024. 
• On 22^nd April 2024, the petitioner formally requested permission from the authorities to resume the practice, but received no response. 
• The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking judicial intervention. 
• The petitioner contends that the matter involves fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 
• The fourth respondent (Nerur Sathguru Sathasiva Brammediral Sabha), responsible for organizing the function, has endorsed the petitioner's position. 
• The petitioner seeks relief from the Court to allow the performance of the ritual. 
• The Court has referred the case of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954  commonly known as Shirur Mutt case. 

What is the Interpretation of Constitutional Rights and Religious Practices? 

• Justice Swaminathan's judgment primarily relies on Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.  
• The court extended the scope of the fundamental right to privacy to encompass "spiritual orientation," drawing a parallel with previously recognized aspects such as gender and sexual orientation. 
•  This interpretation has led to the protection of the customary practice under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 21, and 25(1) of the Constitution. 
• The judgment argues that the devotees' belief in deriving spiritual benefits from rolling on plantain leaves left behind by others after consuming food is protected under the right to privacy.  
• The court added that one's personal choices governing the way of life were intrinsic to privacy and that privacy was not lost or surrendered merely because the individual was in a public place. 
• Justice Swaminathan contends that if the right to privacy includes "gender and sexual orientation," it should also encompass "spiritual orientation."   
• The court's reliance on the Mahabharata to support its decision raises questions about the use of religious texts as legal precedents in a secular democracy.  
• Moreover, the judgment fails to adequately address the potential public health concerns associated with the practice of rolling on used plantain leaves. 

Case Law Referred  

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 

• This case was decided by a 7 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 
• The judgment affirms that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom extends beyond mere belief to the outward expression of such beliefs through acts. 
• Religion is defined as a matter of faith for individuals and communities, rooted in a system of beliefs or doctrines conducive to spiritual well-being. 
• The court emphasizes that religion is not limited to doctrines or beliefs but encompasses rituals, observances, ceremonies, and modes of worship. 
• These religious practices may extend to matters of food and dress, which are considered integral parts of religion. 
• The essential aspects of a religion are to be primarily determined with reference to the doctrine of essentiality. 
• Specific examples of essential religious practices are provided, including: 
• a. Offering food to idols at particular times  
• b. Performing periodic ceremonies in prescribed ways 
• c. Daily recitation of sacred texts d. Oblations to sacred fire 
• The judgment clarifies that Article 25 of the Constitution protects not only religious beliefs but also practices performed in pursuance of religion. 
• The use of the phrase "practice of religion" in Article 25 is highlighted to underscore this protection of religious acts. 
• The court acknowledges that the State may impose restrictions on the free exercise of religion, but only on grounds of public order, morality, and health. 
• The judgment implies that determining the essentiality of a religious practice requires careful consideration of the specific tenets and doctrines of the religion in question. 
• The ruling suggests a broad interpretation of religious freedom, encompassing a wide range of practices beyond mere belief or doctrine. 
• The decision establishes a framework for balancing religious freedom with state interests, recognizing both the importance of protecting religious practices and the state's authority to impose certain restrictions. 

Conclusion 

Justice Swaminathan's judgment on religious practices raises critical questions about balancing religious freedom with constitutional duties in a secular democracy. The extension of privacy rights to include "spiritual orientation" sets a precedent that requires careful scrutiny to prevent validating potentially harmful practices. Moving forward, the judiciary must delicately balance respect for religious freedoms with the constitutional mandate to foster scientific temper, ensuring a society that honors both religious sentiments and rational thought for the greater good of all citizens.