HVK Archives: SC defines ambit of State's role in religion
SC defines ambit of State's role in religion - Hindustan Times
Bal Krishna
()
20 January 1997
Title : SC defines ambit of State's role in religion
Author : Bal Krishna
Publication : Hindustan Times
Date : January 20, 1997
The verdict of the Supreme Court in Vaishno Devi shrine case holding that the
service of the priest is a secular activity and that it may he regulated by
the State clearly defines the role of the State in the matter of religion.
Making a distinction between religious service and the person who performs
the service, the court says that performance of the religious service
according to the tenets, customs and usage's prevalent in a place of worship
is an integral part of the religious faith and belief and it cannot be
regulated by the State.
But the State has power to regulate the appointment of the priest and can his
emoluments. The Government can also abolish his customary share in the
offering to the deity.
The ruling was given by a division bench comprising Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy
and Mr Justice G. B. Pattanaik while upholding constitutional validity of the
Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, which was enacted
to provide for the better management, administration and governance of the
temple and its endowments.
Justice Ramaswamy, who delivered the 62-page judgement on behalf of the
court, made it clear that though performance of the ritual ceremonies was an
"integral part" of the religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution, but securing the service of a priest, who performs ritual
ceremonies, was not.
Therefore, when the hereditary right to perform service in the temple can be
terminated or abolished by sovereign legislature, it can equally regulate the
service conditions sequel to the abolition of the hereditary right of
succession in the office of a priest.
The judges say though a priest integrally associates himself with the
performance of ceremonial rituals and daily pooja to the deity, he is the
holder of an office of a priest in the temple. He is subject to discipline on
par with other members of the establishment.
Abolition of emoluments attached to the office of the priest, therefore,
cannot be said to be invalid. The customs or usage's in that behalf were not
an integral part of the religion.
The judges cited the apex court judgement in A. S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs
State of Andhra Pradesh case in which it was held that the word 'religion'
used in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is personal to the person
having faith and belief in the religion.
While defining religion, the court had said that religion is that which binds
a man with cosmos, his Creator or super power. Essentially, religion is a
matter of personal faith and belief or personal relation of an individual
with what he regards as cosmos, his Maker or his Creator which, he believes,
regulates the existence of living beings and the forces of the universe.
Religion, undoubtedly, has its basis in a system of beliefs and doctrines
which are regarded by those who profess religion to be conducive to their
spiritual well-being. Right to religion guaranteed under Articles 15 and 26
of the Constitution is riot an absolute or unfettered right but is subject to
legislation by the State limiting or regulating any-economic, financial,
political or secular - activity associated with its religious belief, faith,
practice or custom.
These are subject to reform as a social welfare measure by appropriate
legislation by the State. Though religious practices and performance of acts
in pursuance of religious belief are, as much as, 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
placed before the court.
Therefore, the judges said, a balance has to be kept between right to
religious belief and faith and the restrictions that can be imposed by the
State in such matters. In other words, the court has defined the ambit and
scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution which protect matters of
religious doctrine or belief as well as acts performed in pursuance of their
rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship.
The judgement also demarcated certain areas in which the State can make laws
regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or secular
activity which may be associated with religious practice.
Under Article 25 (2b) of Constitution, State has been given power to make
laws providing for social welfare and social reforms even though these might
interfere with religious practices.
Another significant part of the judgement is that the State Governor, who is
ex-officio chairman of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, constituted under
the Act, is no longer bound by the advice of his Council of Ministers and has
to act on his own discretion.
Referring to various provisions of the legislation, the judges say that the
Governor is required to exercise his ex-officio power to oversee personally
the administration, management and governance of the shrine, and the fund and
properties vested in the Board.
However, a non-Hindu Governor shall nominate an eminent Hindu as his deputy
responsible for presiding over the meetings as chairman to implement
decisions to be taken by the Board in the administration, management and
governance of the shrine and its fund.
Interpreting the provisions of the legislation, the judges say that Governor
is sovereign ex-efficio holder of power and shall be responsible for proper,
efficient and effective administration, management of the temple. The court
disposed of an appeal filed by the temple priest represented by the Baridaran
Association and others.
The court has also directed that those priests who had rejected the offer of
employment by the Board and had suffered economic losses as they are no
longer allowed to collect offerings, are entitled to compensation Plum the
Board after they file their claim before a tribunal to be set up for this
purpose within two months. Similarly, the takeover of the administration and
management of the shrine does not amount to takeover of the related property
rights vested in the Dharmarth Trust or the priests, the judges observed in
their judgement.
Back
Top
|
