SAIYID MANZUR HASAN Vs. SAIYID MUHAMMAD ZAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the town of Aurangabad there are two sects of Mahomedans, the Shias and the Sunnis. These sects worship in the month of Moharram in a different manner. In particular the Shias conduct a procession along with various emblems, which it is not necessary to specify, all alluding to the martyrdom of Hasan and Husain, and as the procession proceeds they from time to time perform a ceremony called Matam which means that they stop for a little and wail. The Sunnis also revere the martyrdom of Hasan and Husain but worship in a different way. In the town of Aurangabad from Mme immemorial the procession of the Shias has passed along a certain public road which passed behind the back of a mosque used by the Sunnis. In 1916 for the first time the Sunnis interfered with the procession and alleged that it disturbed their devotions in the mosque. A modus vivendi was arranged for a time. In order to prevent disturbances for the moment the magistrates passed a regulation for the year in question that there should be no performance of Matam within a certain distance of the mosque until the procession had passed a certain distance beyond the mosque. A similar arrangement was made in 1917. To bring matters to a crisis the Shias then, in 1918; raised an action in the Court of Aligarh, asking for a declaration of their right to go in procession and use Matam and for a perpetual injunction against the Sunnis again interfering with them. They also asked for damages. The action was opposed by the Sunnis. The District Judge granted the declaration that they craved, but subject to any order that from time to time the magistrates might make, and refused damages. Appeal was taken to the High Court by the defendants and the plaintiffs raised a cross appeal asking that the rider as to the power of the magistrates might be deleted. The High Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had not made out any cause for a declaration. They treated the suit as a prayer to be allowed to block absolutely the highway, which, their lordships considered, could not be allowed.

(2.) Leave was asked to appeal to the Privy Council and was granted by the Chief Justice and another Judge who had not heard the appeal, and it is abundantly clear from the observations which were made by them that they thought the question one of great importance.

(3.) The case seems to their lordships to raise for authoritative decision thy question as to the right of religious processions to proceed along the roads in India, practising their religious observances, and the decided authorities in India are certainly conflicting. The first question is, is there a right to conduct a religious procession with its appropriate observances along a highway? Their lordships think the answer is in the affirmative. In Parthasaradi V/s. Chinnakrishna,(1882) I. L. R. 5 Mad. 304 Turner C. J. lays down the law thus (p. 309):- Persons of whatever sect...are entitled to conduct religious processions through public streets so that they do not interfere with the ordinary use of such streets by the public and subject to such directions as the Magistrates may lawfully give to prevent obstructions of the thoroughfare or breaches of the public peace.