COMMR OF POLICE Vs. ACHARYA JAGDISHWARANANDA ABADHUTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ananda Marga was founded by one P.R.Sarkar who was known to his followers and "Sri Ananda Murtiji". The followers of Ananda Marga are known as Ananda Margis. For Anandamargis Ananda Murtiji is their guru and his precepts are binding on them. It is contended by the Anandamargis that in 1966 the Tandava Dance was introduced by Ananda Murtiji to be performed publicity in processions on special occasions. This alleged introduction was not in writing. The performance of the Tandava Dance in a public procession was prohibited by the State Authorities under orders passed from time to time under S.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Representatives of the Anandamargis challenged the prohibitory orders issued under S.144, Cr.P.C. by way of writ proceedings in 1982. The matter was ultimately disposed of by the Supreme Court in 1983. The judgment (hereinafter referred to as the earlier judgment) has since been reported in Jagadishwarananda v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta, (1983) 4 SCC 522. In disposing of the matter the Supreme Court held that the Ananda Marga was a religious denomination within Hinduism but was of the view that the Anandamargis had not been able to establish that the public performance of the Tandava Dance was an essential part of the their belief and as such they could not claim the protection of Art.25 or 26 of the Constitution. In arriving at its finding the Supreme Court had observed that no literature had been produced by the Ananda Margis in support of their contention that it was essential to their belief that the Tandava Dance should be performed in public.

(2.) In 1986 a revised edition of the precepts of Ananda Murtiji was published. The precepts which are known as "CARYACARYA" contain directions that the Tandava Dance is to be performed during certain festivals in procession in public.

(3.) In May, 1987 an application was made by the Ananda Marga Pracaraka Sangha to the Police Authorities for permission to hold a "public procession with Tandava Dance". This permission was refused by the Police "in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court............ on the subject." The present writ petitioner then filed an application under Art.32. of the Constitution before the Supreme Court challenging such refusal.