PATNA: The Patna high court, in a significant verdict, has ruled that the fundamental right to religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution is not absolute and cannot override public law and order. The court said such right must be exercised in harmony with the rights of other people and societal norms.A single bench of justice Alok Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by Bhadai Chaudhary on behalf of an “akhara” (monastery of a Hindu sect), holding that the state govt should give primacy to public health, safety and tranquility while granting permission for any religious procession (julus), particularly in a residential area. The verdict was passed and uploaded to the high court website on Thursday but came to public domain on Friday.Justice Kumar further observed, “Secularism is the basic structure of Indian Constitution and the fundamental right of religious freedom affecting general civic life and amenities has to undergo parameters of ‘reasonable restrictions’ provided in Constitution itself.”The writ petition sought a direction to the state govt to grant permission for 300 persons to hold the “Mahabiri Julus” (religious procession), conducted yearly on the 11th day of the Bhadra month (last Aug/first Sept fortnight) of the Vikram calendar by an “akhara” in Hathuara village of Siwan district.The petitioner claimed such permission was a matter of fundamental right. The state govt, however, submitted in its counter affidavit that previous such processions had involved the torching of a public vehicle and public nuisance caused by marching mobs.The high court found the issue covered by the Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of Dr M Ismail Faruqui, which held that offering prayers or worship, being a religious practice, is a matter of fundamental right. However, the location where such prayers or worship are offered stands on a different footing.The high court’s ruling, according to a legal expert, makes clear that while religious freedom is constitutionally protected, its exercise cannot be separated from considerations of public health, safety and tranquillity. “The court’s observations also underline the need to balance religious practices with the rights of others and the broader requirements of civic life, particularly when such activities are held in residential areas,” he said.
