Religious Processions Should Spread Positivity/Brotherhood & In No Manner Should Cause Any Communal Disturbance: Madras High Court

The Bench of Justice R. Hemalatha was hearing the plea of one M. Thangaraj (Ex.MC) who prayed before the Court for allowing the general public to participate in the ritual "Girivalam" outside Arulmigu Padmagirishwhara Swamy and Arulmigu Abirami Ambigai Temple at Dindigul District.

Plea

He contended before the Court that the first respondent (The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul) prohibited the entire public from gathering more than five in number outside the temple in order to prevent the conduct of procession around the temple.

According to him, the general public including him follow the ritual of taking a procession around the temple ("Girivalam") for the past 20 years and that the police is preventing them from doing so.

He, therefore, prayed for allowing the general public to participate in the ritual "Girivalam"

The submission made by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town

It was submitted before the Court by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town that as per the intelligence report, members from Hindu Religions Organization, Hindu Munnani and Hindu Makkal Katchi joined the procession ("Girivalam").

It was also submitted that they were also carrying banners, placards, mike sets, chanting slogans and beating drums and this was objected to by another Section of people belonging to Islam, who claim that the Rock Fort is their religious site, where they conduct Namaz and Prayers, and at the same time, the Hindu Makkal Katchi and other Hindu outfits are planning to lit lamps atop the hills.

The situation was therefore controlled by deploying nearly 600 police personals.

Court's observations

The Court noted that the ritual of 'Girivalam' has been followed by the Hindus amongst the general public for the last ten years and remarked,

"All the Religious processions should spread positivity and brotherhood and in no manner should be a cause for any communal disturbance. This applies for all religions and this Court expects every individual to believe in unity in diversity and communal harmony."

Lastly, the Court opined,

"I do not find any reason as to why the general public should be prohibited from taking part in the procession especially when the impugned order dated 28.12.2020 does not prohibit the general public from participating in 'Girivalam'."

However, keeping in mind the Covid-19 protocol as well as law and order into consideration, the Court directed that it should be ensured that the procession is peaceful without any provocative slogans or any other gestures.

Related News

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Friday (19^th February) allowed a petition that sought permission to conduct an awareness campaign in and around Madurai for the construction of 'Sri Rama Temple in Ayodhya'.

The Bench of Justice R. Hemalatha directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with reasonable restrictions for the free movement of the vehicle in and around Madurai.

Also, while observing that classification among men has got no place in the abode of God, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently remarked that it was "very unfortunate" that there was a difference of opinion over the conduct of a temple festival in the Tiruchi district.

The Bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice S. Ananthi observed thus while dismissing a plea that sought the conduct of a peace meeting between 3 communities over organizing a temple festival of the Sri Eraniamman Thirukovil.

Further, while quashing FIRs registered against Christian evangelist Mohan C Lazarus for hurting religious sentiments, the Madras High Court earlier this month made certain significant observations regarding the need to maintain respect and tolerance for other religious faiths in a pluralistic society.

A single bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh quashed the FIRs against Lazarus, the founder of 'Jesus Redeems Ministry', following his unconditional apology, but only after strongly rebuking his conduct and emphasizing the need to maintain restraint while exercising the right to propagate religion.

Case title - M. Thangaraj (Ex. MC) v. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul and others [WP(MD)No.433 of 2021 & WMP(MD)Nos.359, 360 & 362 of 2021]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order