Tolerance Should Be Shown Towards Other Religious Practices; This Country Takes Pride In Unity In Diversity: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court in a recent judgment spoke about the need to show tolerance towards other religious practices.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a Hindu man challenging the permission granted by the Kanyakumari District Collector granted to construct a church, against which the petitioner complained of nuisance due to the use of loudspeakers throughout day and night.

The Court started its judgment by noting that in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, 'we the people' had resolved to constitute India as a Secular Republic. Reference was made to Article 15(1), which says that the State should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of factors like religion and Article 51A(e) as per which it is the Fundamental Duty of every citizen to promote harmony and brotherhood. The Fundamental Rights and Duties were sacrosanct and binding on courts, which adjudicate issues relating to religion.

Noting that the petitioner was a Hindu, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed : "One of the basic tenets to be followed by every Hindu is tolerance. Tolerance must be his own community or religion and in particular, to also to every other religious practice".

The Court noted that a temple was also located in the same residential area. Considering this, the Court spoke about the need to maintain tolerance and the importance of the ideal "unity in diversity".

"The petitioner should learn to live with everybody else around him. This country takes the pride in unity in diversity. There cannot be diversity in unity. The petitioner should accept the group of people living across, and around with him and he should also accept that people of various faith and various caste, creed and religion and given rights under the constitution. The country is a secular country recognising practice of religion.The petitioner cannot make compliant against the same".

The petitioner said he was not heard prior to the permission being granted for the building. However, the Court observed that the Collector had examined all aspects and granted permission to put up the church or rather convert an existing house into a church.

The Court also observed that the District Collector may, by himself or through his subordinates, impress upon the person who has built the church that it is prudent to show restraint and that the use of loudspeakers may not be required for the God to hear the prayers.

"Let the prayers be conducted in a gentle manner", the Court advised. The Court said that if the authorities succeed in impressing upon the person who built the church to practice tolerance and respect, "then sense and sensibility would prevail over pride and prejudice".

Case Title: Paulraj vs District Collector and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

Click here to read/download the judgment