S.P. MITTAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

 

S.P. MITTAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

 

 

 

CITATION      1983 SCR (1) 729

COURT                        Supreme Court of India JUDGES/CORAM:-

Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice O. Reddy, Justice

V. Eradi, Justice Balakrishna and Justice R.B. Misra DATE OF JUDGEMENT                                                08.11.1982

 

INTRODUCTION

 

India being a secular country has tolerance towards all religions and this is reflected in the decisions of our judiciary from time to time. Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 15 and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Modern India came into existence in 1947 and the Preamble of the Indian Constitution was amended in 1976 to state that India is a secular state. But having right is not sufficient. There have been numerous conflicts between various interest groups and law making bodies which will be dealt in the respective case analysis.

FACTS:-

 

The facts of the case are as follows:

Sri Aurobindo was a great sage and philosopher of India. After his career in politics and administration, he decided to turn his life into yoga and meditation in Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu. A French woman named Madame M. Alfassa became his disciple and later she was also known as Mother. After some time people from all over India and abroad also joined Sri Aurobindo and in 1960 formed a society named Sri Aurobindo Society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act 1961. After some years a new settlement was formed by the name of Auroville where the people were educated. That’s the teachings of Sri Aurobindo. Seeing a unique task, the state and central government decided to provide funds to the township. As a result UNESCO also decided to help this township in its development as it was instrumental in international relations.

After the death of Mother Alfasa in the year 1970, several cases were registered against misappropriation of funds in the township. In view of such conflict, the central government decided to take the power of administration in its own hands, for which the law passed the Presidential Ordinance. After some time that ordinance was changed to Auroville Emergency Provision Act 1980 by filing a writ. This was challenged before the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUE :-

 

The main issues in the case were: The constitutional validity of the Act has been challenged on four grounds:

·       Parliament has no legislative capacity to enact the impugned law;

·       The impugned Act violates Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution;

·       The impugned Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; And

·       The act was malicious.

 

 

SUMMARY OF COURT DECISION :-

 

In the judgment delivered by the Court, the Supreme Court first defined the powers of the Parliament where the judgment is-

 

 

Parliament had the legislative power to enact the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.

The subject matter of the impugned Act is not covered in entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Even if the subject matter of the impugned Act is not covered by any specific entry in List I or III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, it shall in any case be covered by the residuary entry 97 of List I.

The functions of the lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution are not to confer powers. They only demarcate the legislative areas. Articles 245 to 248 of the Constitution empower the appropriate legislature to make laws.

The Auroville Act incidentally does not come under the purview of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 as it is not in any way related to the constitution, regulation and winding up of the society.

 

 

ANALYSIS :-

 

Religion, undefined by the Constitution, is also incapable of a precise judicial definition. In the light of the provisions of the Constitution and judicial precedent, it can be said that religion is a matter of faith. It is a matter of faith and principle.

In Article 26 of the Constitution the word "religious denomination" must take its colour from the word 'religion' and if so, the expression "religious denomination" must also satisfy three conditions: it must be a collection of persons who have a system of belief or doctrine which they consider to be conducive to their spiritual well-being, which is a common belief; General organization: and designation by specific name.

Religion refers to a system of beliefs or principles that are followed by people who consider that religion to be conducive to their spiritual well-being. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It also has its outward expression in acts; Religion should not be a theist. The above dispute was held in Shastri Yagyapurush et al. V. Muldas Bhudardas Vaish and others. Religious sect means a religious sect or body

having a similar belief and organization and designated by a specific name. A law which completely takes away the rights of administration out of the hands of one religious denomination and vested in another would be a violation of the right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 26. Madras Vs Sri Laxmindra Teertha Swamy. Further the arguments raised cannot be accepted for two reasons-

 

 

Firstly, because it is not indicated what other entities were there where similar conditions existed. Moreover, the more specific it is with this institution, the more it involves the government. An institution can also be taken as a class. A serious law and order situation had arisen in Auroville, there were many cases pending against various foreigners, funds earmarked for Auroville were diverted to other purposes and the atmosphere was getting out of hand. In these circumstances the government intervened and promulgated the Ordinance and later it was replaced by the impugned Act. It cannot be said that it is violative of Article 14 accordingly.

A Constitution Bench of seven judges of this Court in Budhan Choudhry v State of Bihar explained the true meaning and scope of Article 14 as follows:

 

 

"It is now well established that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid proper classification for the purposes of law. However, two conditions must be met in order to pass the test of permissible classification. should be established, that is, (i) that the classification should be founded on a sensible distinction that separates those persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that the difference should be determined by that distinction. There must be a rational relation to the object which is sought to be obtained by the law in question."

 

 

These observations were taken up by this Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmiya Vs Shri Justice S.R. Tendulkar and others. The judicial trend has evolved with the passage of time in terms of its definition and importance as far as the right to freedom of religion is concerned as it has always been a matter of judicial interpretation. In the Anand Margi case, the court upheld the distinction between religion and religious denomination while upholding SP Mittal v UoI. In the Bijo Emmanuel case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a religious denomination must be adhered to in order to be protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

CONCLUSION

 

In the present case, S P Mittal v Union of India, and various other matters discussed further, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines with regard to the definition of “religion” and “religious denominations”, where the view of the court was very clear. What should be considered a religious denomination and what should not. Specific guidelines were given for the religious denomination.

However, the author concludes that judicial tendencies have never been a matter of predictable concern with respect to religious authority. A citizen can exercise his right to religious practice as long as he is not harming another, but before that it is very important to understand what is religion and what is not so as to claim his right under Fundamental Rights To be.