LAITHA VASUDEVAN Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Guruvayoor Devaswom Board not to prohibit Sri. K.J. Yesudas from entering Guruvayoor Temple to worship observing Hindu religious rites. The petitioner says that Sri. Yesudas is a devout Hindu and that there is no law prohibiting such a person from entering Guruvayoor Temple observing all rites of Hindu religion and that there is no law made by the second respondent Government of Kerala preventing those who believe in Hinduism from entering Guruvayoor Temple and worshiping according to Hindu religious rites. The plea of the petitioner is that Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the rights to the aforesaid effect and that the materials on record would show that Sri. K.J. Yesudas deserves to be permitted to enter Guruvayoor Temple.

(2.) When this matter came up for admission, we required the learned Counsel for the petitioner to address on the need to entertain a Writ Petition at the instance of a stranger since Sri. K.J. Yesudas does not appear to be an individual who needs the assistance of the Public Interest Litigation mechanism for redressal of his grievances, if any. Nor is there any pleading that he needs such aid. Then, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that this Writ Petition is not filed on behalf of Sri. K.J. Yesudas and the petitioner's case is that there is violation of her fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, to propagate religion, which, according to her, includes the right to insist that a person who believes in and is prepared to follow the Hindu rites shall be permitted entry into Guruvayoor Temple. To the petitioner, this is part of her fundamental rights which she could insist on, as referable to her right to propagate the religion which she professes and practises. It is argued that the failure to permit entry of Sri. K.J. Yesudas into Guruvayoor Temple at the petitioner's request or insistence would amount to negation of the petitioner's right to propagate religion in terms of Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

(3.) Article 25(1) of the Constitution provides that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. The right to profess religion is the freedom to have one's belief and the right to even avow publicly; to make an open declaration of one's belief. See Punjab Rao v. Dr. D.P. Meshram, 1965 AIR(SC) 1179. The right 'freely to profess' is akin to the freedom of thought which emanates out of freedom of conscience. A survey of the constitutional provisions would show that no restriction whatsoever is placed on the freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. For, conscience and mind which generate thoughts, ideas and beliefs are essentially elements over which no law could be made. The society would be invaded by the conscience or thought of an individual only when ideas generated by them get transformed into words or actions. The Constitution and the laws can regulate only what may flow out of the conscience or mind, as words or deeds. When one has the freedom of conscience and in exercise of that, he has a particular belief, he will have the right to profess that as a religion, provided, by professing such religion, he shall not act in any manner violating public order, morality and health or any other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Practice of religion proceeds from such right to profess religion. Religion is a matter of faith. The right to propagate religion is one's right to spread; to disseminate or diffuse; from person to person or from place to place; a statement, belief, practice etc. This meaning of the word 'propagate' was adopted by the Apex Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 AIR(SC) 908to enunciate the scope of the word 'propagate' in Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The Apex Court clearly stated that this right is to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets and does not amount to granting a right to convert a person to one's own religion.