Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Organization Of Ganesh Chaturthi Celebrations By Delhi Govt

The Delhi High Court today issued notice on a petition against organization of Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations by the Delhi Government. The plea alleged that the same violates the basic feature of the Indian Constitution, i.e., Secularism.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Amit Bansal after hearing the petitioner, issued notice to the Delhi Government and the Election Commission.

Advocate ML Sharma, appearing as party in person, submitted that Aam Aadmi Party led Delhi Government organized Ganesh Chaturthi rituals on September 10 and the same were broadcasted live on TV.

He argued that in terms of Constitutional mandate and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SR Bomai case, the Delhi Government cannot promote religious celebrations. He submitted that India is a secular state and no government can be seen indulging in religious activities.

Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra on the other hand, appearing for the Delhi Government, stated that the decision was taken in order to prevent religious congregations amid Covid-19 pandemic. He stated that the Delhi Government had prohibited setting up of pandals to prevent overcrowding and hence, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal had merely requested the media to cover the celebration for citizens' participation from their residences.

He insisted that the decision was taken in view of larger public health interest and must be appreciated, rather than being challenged.

He added that Government facilitating religious celebrations is not new, in fact it is done every year during Kumbh Mela, Amarnath Yatra, etc. It is the solemn duty of the State to protect public health, he said.

The Court then asked Sharma, as to which provision of the Constitution prohibits the State from organizing religious activities.

Drawing the attention of the Court to Article 25 of the Constitution, Sharma cited the following excerpt from the case of SR Bomai v. Union of India on interpretation of the provision:

"Article 25 inhibits the Government to patronise a particular religion as State religion overtly or covertly. Political party is, therefore, positively enjoined to maintain neutrality in religious beliefs and prohibit practices derogatory to the Constitution and the laws. Introduction of religion into politics is not merely in negation of the constitutional mandates but also a positive violation of the constitutional obligation, duty, responsibility and positive prescription of prohibition specifically enjoined by the Constitution and the R.P. Act."

Mehra argued that the ruling was with respect to seeking votes in the name of religion, however, the Court asked the Respondents to file their replies by the next date of hearing.

In his plea, Sharma urged that the involvement of the State in the conduction of religious worship by running advertisements on television channels, at the cost of the state treasury, is violative to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, 25, and 14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the Ganesh Chaturthi celebration by the State attacks the basic structure of secularism, resulting in a serious injury to the constitutional mandate to the citizen of India.

Mehra submitted that the celebration had nothing to do with the state exchequer and no subsidy was granted for this purpose. He added that the plea is politically motivated and must be dismissed with heavy costs.

Significantly, Sharma has sought derecognition of the Aam Admi Party and the concerned Ministers/ MLA involved in the celebrations.

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, appearing for ECI, submitted that once a party is recognized under Section 29A under Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Commission does not have the power to de-recognize a party.

Earlier, a similar petition filed to prevent the said Ganesh Chaturthi celebration was dismissed by the High Court with liberty to file afresh with proper averments, allegations, and annexures. 

Case Title: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India