HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE THRU. SECY. RANJANA AGNIHOTRI & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA THRU. SECY. MINS. OF LAW & JUSTICE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assert a right for defining a place inside the premises of the new building of the High Court at Lucknow for offering prayers, particularly in view of the fact that no place has been earmarked as a Temple or Gurudwara for the majority of the visitors including Lawyers as was available in the Old High Court Campus Building at Qaiserbagh. The petitioners assert that in view of the provisions of Art. 25 of the Constitution of India such a place should be earmarked and allocated within the High Court campus, as without a place for worship of their choice, they are being deprived of their right to practice and profess Hindu Religion that amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. They contend that not only the Lawyers of different communities but also the litigants and the employees forming a sizeable majority, and having most of their time to spend here, require such a place which would also enhance the ethos and help in maintaining the tolerant atmosphere of the community, thereby protecting the rights of it's citizens and also upholding the rule of law under the Constitution. It is not only the right to worship that the petitioners assert but Sri H. S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is also the obligation of the State to provide such facilities allowing the petitioners and others visiting the High Court to profess their religion in a particular manner and be able to exercise such rights within the premises itself.

(2.) This argument has been resisted by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Sri Upendra Nath Misra for the High Court and by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India alike. Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Union of India has urged that Art. 25 allows the freedom of conscience and free profession and practice as also propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this Part, i.e., Part - III of the Constitution of India. He contends that there is a freedom to do so but Art. 25 of the Constitution nowhere confers any right to any person to exercise this choice at a public place or premises, particularly a premise that represents one of the pillars of secular democracy in this country.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the High Court have also adopted the same arguments and urge that no such right can be asserted to allot a particular place for worship within the premises of the High Court which is a public building for the cause of justice alone. The insistence of practicing this right within the premises is not protected under Art. 25 of the Constitution nor is there any obligation on the State to provide such a place as a place of convenience or facility to the petitioners.