SRI GOPI NATH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GALAXY of eminent intellectuals, academicians, Social workers, religious heads and even Godman, apart from numerous interveners, feeling religiously hurt and morally wounded by telecast of serial Uttar Ramayan from Doordarshan have raised issue of enormous importance and profound sensitivity touching upon religious autonomy guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution its susceptibility depth and impact.

(2.) RELIGION is a realm beyond reason and logic as belief in the unseen 'Holy' and faith in the mythology emanates worship by prayer or sacrifice, contemplation or incantation magic or ritual. What constitutes religion has eluded theologians, philosophers and scholar alike. But what is universally accepted it is one's own preception of the 'Divine' or belief in creator or faith in Dharmma or observance of rituals etc. Dr. Radha Krishnan, the famous philosopher, considered religion as specific attitude of self, Swami Vivekanand described it as comprising of philosophy, mythology and rituals. Encyclopaedia Britannica explains religion as, "Man's relation to that which he regards holy............Worship is probably the most basic of these, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practised by believers and worshippers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures". In S. P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 while highlighting various facts of religion its meaning and understanding it was observed that, "RELIGION like 'democracy' and 'equality' is an elusive expression which everyone understands according to his own pre-conception." In Commissioner H.R.E. v. L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282, it was held that religion is a matter of faith with individual or community. In Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388, it was held that religion undoubtedly has its basis in system of beliefs and doctrines which are regarded by those who profess their religions to be conducive to their well being.

(3.) WITH this preface about Hinduism and religion we now proceed to examine scope of Article 25. Religion being the binding faith and devinenector for the survival and growth of men every civilised society has permitted its preservation. The American and Australian Constitutions too guarantee free exercise of religion. When our Constitution was framed visualising a secular society and preamble set up the goal of liberty of faith and belief then it was concretised by providing freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. Religious autonomy articulated in Article 25 "has left every person free in the matter of his relation to his creator, if he believes in one ", Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853. The words used are of wide import. They can not be freezed in a rigid mould nor it is possible while constitutionalising the relationship of State to Religion to quest for too literal construction as problems such as these may not have been envisioned when the constitution was framed. Yet it may be legitimate to find out doctrinal frame work, which would best realise the value which lies at bottom of guarantee. Freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion expands the scope and widens the ambit to account for multiple form of religious exercises. American Courts have extended operation of freedom clause to what is even "arguably religion." Probably the best illustration is furnished by Malnak v. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi case in which the American Courts while considering free exercise clause held Transcendental meditation taught to students was religion even when vast majority considered it to be mental exercise only. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388, the Hon'ble Court while explaining scope of Article 25 observed "Thus, subject to the restrictions which this Article imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for the edification of others." It was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908. In Shisur Maths case, AIR 1954 SC 282, it was held that Article 25 secured to every person not only the freedom of religion belief and conscienced but also the right to express his belief in such outward acts as he thought proper. Since religion has not been defined, obviously, because it is incapable of any precise specification it extends and includes any renet or belief or practice which one considers to be religion. Even fasting or bathing in a sacred river is religion for Hindus.