K R MAHADEVAN Vs. MATTANNUR MUNCIPALTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mattannur Municipality has proposed a 'Vidyarambham' function, to be conducted in their library and has published Ext.P1 application form, to be filled up by the parents of children who are interested in participating.

(2.) The petitioner, who is stated to be a person professing Hindu religion, alleges that the format of Ext.P1 is designed to humiliate certain Sec. of people, since it is limpid therefrom that children will be forced to recite and write the prayers enumerated therein, at the time of "Vidyarambham", contrary to their religious beliefs and the ethos of 'Sanadhana Dharma'. The petitioner, therefore, prays that respondents 1 and 2 be immediately interdicted from conducting any such programme, which he asserts can only be done in a solemn manner, in tune with traditional rituals.

(3.) In response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel - Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 - Sri.Anoop P.V., submitted that the petitioner appears to have approached this Court under a misdirection of what is intended through Ext.P1. He explained that, the Municipality has been organizing such event as early from the year 2014, giving opportunity to members of every community, belief and philosophy, to participate in a secular manner; for which, multiple options of prayers have been shown in Ext.P1. He submitted that it is the choice of the parents of the participating children to decide which prayer, among the first three shown in Ext.P1, his or her child will write, as their first words, during the 'Vidyarambham' programme; and hence that, contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, Ext.P1 discloses a very bonafide intent. He reiteratingly submitted that the options given in Ext.P1 are intended to be chosen by the parents of the children interested in participating in the programme; and that no specific prayer will be forced to be recited or written by any child, in derogation of their religious belief or philosophy. He then asserted that this writ petition is not maintainable because, the petitioner does not expouse any personal cause, but appears to have approached this Court with confutative intentions.