VINAYAGAR MURALI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Secularism, to which we have pledged ourselves under the Constitution, is not an exaltation of irreligion. Secularism, therefore, is a basic feature of our constitution. Secularism, in Indian Constitution, does not mean an anti-God or aesthetic society, but it means equal status of all religion, without any preference in favour of or discrimination against any one of them, as held in Bommai case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1918.

(2.) The Constitution, however, does not define the word "religion", even though Articles 25 to 28 deal with religion. These articles embody the principles of religious tolerance. All persons are entitled to freely practice their own faith and religious practice. Hence, the Constitution emphasizes the secular nature of Indian democracy.

(3.) The petitioner is the convenor of the Tamil Nadu State Vinayakar Chathurthi Central Committee consisting of the following organizations: (a) Hindu Makkal Katchi; (b) Hanuman Sena; (c) Shiva Sena; (d) Shiva Sena Workers Union; (e) Vinayaka Chathurthi Vizha Kuzhu, Pallavaram and Chengai District; (f) Vinayaka Chathurthi Committee, Chengai District; (g) Hindu Munnani. (1) Having installed temporary idols at various places in the city and celebrated Vinayakar Chathurthi on 10.9.2002, the petitioners have organized for Anna Dharma to poor people, Ganapathi Homam, Gomatha Pooja and Gaja Pooja, Bhajans and proposes to take a procession on 15.9.2002 at 11.30 am, through the thoroughfare to reach the sea at Marina Beach to immerse the idols of Lord Vinayaka in the sea near the place permitted to them in the northern side of the Seerani Arangam at Marina Beach. Hence, the petitioner applied for permission for taking procession on 15.9.2002, mentioning their routes. (2) But one Mr.Ramagopalan representing "Hindu Munnani" had already applied on 26.8.2002 to take a similar procession on 15.9.2002. The Commissioner, exercising his powers conferred under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act, granted permission to the said Ramagopalan to take procession on 15.9.2002 between 1.30 pm and 8.00 pm to reach the sea on the southern side of the Seerani Arangam where they were permitted to install the idol of Lord Vinayaka. Consequently, by proceedings dated 11.9.2002, which is impugned in the above writ petition, the second respondent refused to permit the petitioner to take procession from 1.30 pm on 15.9.2002. However, the petitioner was permitted to perform the poojas and anna dhanas and take the public procession as proposed, at 10.45 am on 14.9.2002, to reach the northern side of Seerani Arangam, where they were permitted to install the idol of Lord Vinayaka by proceedings dated 2.9.2002, prescribing the definite routes and conditions relating to the number of vehicles viz., lorries, tractors and bullock carts, to be used in the procession. (3) Admittedly, the petitioner is not challenging any of the conditions imposed in the proceeding dated 11.9.2002, but is only aggrieved by the refusal of permission to take the public procession on 15.9.2002, as proposed, contending that they have already made elaborate preparations to conduct the poojas and annadanas and engaged vehicles to take procession on 15.9.2002. Hence, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondents proceedings bearing reference No.808/Tha Pi 2/2002 dated 11.9.2002, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to take out the procession on 15th September 2002 as sought for in the application.