Tolerance should be shown towards other religious practices; this country takes pride in unity in diversity: Madras HC - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

Tolerance should be shown towards other religious practices; this country takes pride in unity in diversity: Madras HC



At a time when hate speeches are becoming very common in our country and intolerance has been peaking high, it would be instructive to take a serious note of what the Madras High Court has in an extremely commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment titled Paulraj Vs. District Collector and others in W.P(MD).No.11276 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD). Nos. 9856, 9857 and 9860 of 2020 and 15125 of 2021 delivered recently on January 10, 2022 wherein it has underscored about the dire need to show tolerance towards other religious practices. In this context, we should never be oblivious of what Deanswift had once famously said that, “We have just enough religion to make us hate one another but not enough to make us love one another.” It must be mentioned here that the Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a Hindu man who was challenging the permission that was granted by the Kanyakumari District Collector to construct a church against which the petitioner complained of nuisance due to the use of loudspeakers throughout day and night.

At the outset, the single Judge Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Justice CV Karthikeyan who has authored this noteworthy judgment mentions about the prayer made that, “Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, passed by the first respondent herein in Pa.Mu.Ci-3/28581/2016, dated 06.03.2020 and the consequential impugned proceedings passed by the fourth respondent herein in Building Plan No. 17/20-21 dated 07.07.2020 and quash the same as illegal.”

To start with, it is first and foremost put forth in para 1 of this recent, refreshing, robust and remarkable judgment that, “In the preamble to the Constitution of India, we the people have resolved to Constitute India as a secular Republic. Article 15(1) is as follows:

15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1)The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Article 51 A (e) is as follows:

51A.Fundamental duties it shall be the duty of every citizen of India

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.”

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “The Fundamental Rights and Duties are sacrosanct and binding on the Courts which adjudicate issues relating to the religion.”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent/District Collector, Kanyakumari District, dated 06.03.2020 and consequential proceedings passed by the fourth respondent/Executive officer Pacode A Town Panchayat, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, dated 07.07.2020 and to interfere with the same.”

Quite laudably, the Bench then points out in para 4 that, “The petitioner is a resident of Neduvilai, Kodaivilai, Maruthancode Post, Kanyakumari District. He says that he is a Hindu. One of the basic tenants 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.”

Of course, the Bench then states in para 5 that, “The petitioner, however, has raised objections particularly against the fifth respondent herein, who had apparently build a church, which in the eyes of the petitioner is causing nuisance because the respondent conducts prayers using loudspeakers through out day and night.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 6 that, “The petitioner herein had earlier filed W.P.(MD).No.9127 of 2019 and it is claimed that it is pending. The relief in that writ petition was to direct the first and second respondents therein namely, the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari and the Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District to ensure that the third to sixth respondents therein, who are private individuals cannot use their house for prayer purpose by using loudspeakers and to remove the CCTV cameras put by the third to sixth respondents in their house facing the house of the petitioner herein.”

As it turned out, the Bench mentions in para 7 that, “W.P.(MD).No.9127 of 2021 had already been disposed of based on an undertaking of the fifth respondent herein that he would not use loudspeakers. I am informed that learned Single Judge of this Court had examined the particular relief sought and had also directed to remove or refocusing of the CCTV cameras.”

Truth be told, the Bench then discloses in para 8 that, “However, that is not the grievance in the present writ petition. The present has been filed owing to the fact that the first respondent had passed an order of approval granting building permission for the church and consequential orders have been passed by the fourth respondent therein. It is stated that prior to the issuance of confirmation of such permission, the petitioner was not heard.”

No doubt, the Bench then quite rightly points out in para 9 that, “The petitioner is a resident in the area and building permission is issued only to the person who applies for such permission. The petitioner being a resident is not directly involved with the construction. He may have grievances over the activities which are being conducted or for which the building is put to use.”

Furthermore, the Bench then brings out in para 10 that, “The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein, permission granted to run a church had been examined. In W.P.No.11903 of 2003, South India Assemblies of God Vs the District Collector, Kanyakumari District and others, the relief sought was of negative nature seeking a Mandamus restraining the right of the petitioner, Assemblies of God to Church situated at Kanyakumari. The learned Single Judge had passed an elaborate order and had dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, the District Collector had refused to give permission to put up a Church.”

Most significantly and also most remarkably, the Bench then holds in para 11 what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment stating that, “In the instant case, the District Collector quite apart from examining all aspects had finally granted permission to the fourth respondent to put up a Church, or rather to convert the existing house into a church. It is complained by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the building or now the Church, is in a residential area. However, it is seen that there is also a temple in that particular residential area. 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 District Collector, Kanyakumari District, may by himself/herself or through the Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram have a meeting with the fourth respondent and impress upon the fifth respondent that it is only prudent to be restrained and it is not required that a prayer should put forth in loudspeakers for the God to hear. Let the fourth respondent also realise his responsibilities and appreciate that liberty has been granted to him to respect the residence in that area. Let the prayers be conducted in a gentle manner.”

While being sanguine about the peaceful settlement of the contentious issue, the Bench then minced no words to state in para 12 that, “Therefore, if the first respondent/District Collector either by himself/herself or through the second respondent/Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram, were to impress upon the fifth respondent to practice tolerance and respect, then I am confident that sense and sensibility would prevail over pride and prejudice.”

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 13 that, “The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

In sum, the single Judge Bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan of Madras High Court has been most forthright in advocating that tolerance should be shown towards other religious practices. It also very candidly and graciously conceded that this country takes pride in unity in diversity. To put it differently, we will not become small if we show not just tolerance but also love and respect for people following different religion from ours. If we do so then this is the best form of worship.

It goes without saying that no country can ever truly progress where people don’t have the basic respect for the people following different religion from theirs! We will not become less in stature if we respect people following different religions from ours. So it merits no reiteration that we all Indians must pay heed to what the Madras High Court has held so explicitly, elegantly and eloquently in this leading case! Only then our country move ahead on the road to progress, prosperity and emerge as a powerful country.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

‘The crime committed has to be considered in the remission or premature policy of the state’



The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission which is applicable in the State and the pre­mature release in terms of the policy

The Court noted while hearing the writ petition that in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or pre­mature release, as the case may be, in the instance case. under Section 432(7) CrPC, there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments, can be either the Central or the State Government of the appropriate government.

in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and ordinarily in the State of Gujrat the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed. by an order 06.08.2004., the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighbouring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra, observed by the bench of Apex Court.

As mentioned by the petitioner in the plea that by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2019., the application for pre­mature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat and His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petition was filled by the petitioner for premature release further the petitioner stated that that he had undergone under the custody of more than 15 years 4 months.

Section 302, 376(2) (e) (g) and reading it with Section 149 IPC, Shah was found guilty for the offence, the offence committed by him in the State of Gujrat.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Seeking reduction of qualifying the percentile for admission in ayurveda course: A plea in Supreme Court



The Supreme Court in the Case Amit Kumar v UOI & Or’s observed in Ayurveda course in view of large number of vacancies and for seeking reduction of qualifying percentile for admission, an ayurveda aspirant who appeared in NEET 2021 has approached the Court.

the court had observed that lowering the minimum marks and reducing the percentile for admission to first year BDS Course would not amount to lowing the standards of Education and further the Court directed to lower the percentile mark by 10 percentiles for admission in first year of BDS Course for academic year 2020-2021, with regards to substantive the contentions made by the petitioner by referring the judgement passed in the case in Harshit Agarwal & Or’s v Union of India.

the percentile may also be reduced for Ayurveda programme enabling the Petitioner to take admissions then If percentile is being reduced/considered for reduction for BDS course was further stated by the petitioner in the plea, while referring to an order dated 04.29.2022. Thereafter the top Court had asked Centre to consider lowering the percentile for BDS Courses.

Seeking the Centre’s response in a plea by filing a counter affidavit, noted by the Top Court specifying the above-mentioned information:

after deducting the admission granted for MBBS Courses (BDS Courses), the total number of Candidates.

in All India Quota and State Quota, the totals number of vacant seats.

in government colleges on one hand & private/deemed colleges on the other hand, the number of seats which are remaining.

the petition was filed through AOR Neeraj Shekhar and for the petitioner Advocate Shivam Singh appeared.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Bank case rejected by Supreme Court against farmer



The Supreme Court in the case Bank of Maharashtra & Or’s v Mohanlal Patidar observed an order given by the High Courts of directing the bank the OTS proposal given by a farmer who had availed a loan from the bank, the court further pulled up the Bank of Maharashtra for challenging the order.

The Bank shall complete remaining formalities and provide all consequential benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioners, the court further stated that it is needless to emphasize The OTS proposal given by the petitioners in both the cases shall be accepted by the Bank and ‘sanction letters’ be issued forthwith, the court allowed the petitioner plea.

The petitioner not only promptly challenged the said order, it is noteworthy that petitioner never acceded to the unilateral decision dated 25th August 2021 and even otherwise the letter dated 25th August 2021 is held to be illegal by us, clause-7 of policy cannot take away the fruits of OTS benefits, within two months from the date of issuance of order dated 22th September 2021, the petitioner filled the instant petition and further the court directed we are unable to give stamp of approval to the impugned orders and action of the Bank, observed by the bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and the justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal while setting aside the impugned orders of the bank.

In an order dated 03.09.2021 it was stated and it showed that the petitioner was required to pay minimum 10% of the OTS amount within stipulated time and that he had deposited Rs.35,00,000/- out of Rs.36,50,000/- within the stipulated time, it was argued before the court by the counsel.

As full and final settlement of the dues, he will be required to deposit Rs.50.50 lakhs as he was informed by the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank.

Whole law comes into place when a matter of farmers come as the down payment were also accepted and it was further stated by the bench in an oral remark You don’t file cases against the ones who loot 1000s of crores.

The respondent had obtained a loan and intended to pay it in terms of a One Time Settlement which was quantified as Rs 3650000/-. in furtherance thereof the respondent had deposited Rs 35,00,000 with the bank, in the above-mentioned matter.

The bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme, contended by the counsel further the counsel stated that the bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme.

The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the justice Surya Kant observed and remarked while dismissing the plea assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 02.21.2022 Such a litigation in Supreme Court will spoil the families of farmers financially, Go after bigger fish.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

In Company Law the duomatic principle is applicable even in Indian context: Supreme Court



The Supreme Court in the case Mahima Datla vs Renuka Datla observed and stated that it will be applicable even in the Indian context, if the same is consented by all members ‘strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated in the Duomatic Principle.

It was therefore held that G.V. Rao never seized to be a Director of the Company in view of the acquiescence by Dr. Datla and he had withdrawn his resignation prior to its acceptance, the resignation dated 6th April 2013 was clearly not accepted by Mr. G.V. Rao, as it is clearly being showed by her conduct and there is overwhelming evidence to show that Dr. Datla had accepted Mr. G.V. Rao back into the Board, in this case the court noted.

anything the members of a company can do by formal resolution in a general meeting, they can also do informally, if all of them assent to it, as stated briefly in the Duomatic Principle as derived from the decision In Re: Duomatic Ltd further the court noted the case of Salmon v. Salmon Co. Ltd, as it was held in that case if a company is bound in a matter intra vires by the unanimous agreement of its members. As In Re the court noted that the Duomatic Principle as derived from the decision.

Mr. G.V. Rao continued to carry on as the Director in view of the acquiescence by Dr. Renuka Datla? And weather can the Duomatic Principle can be invoked to state that the issue of resignation of the Director had lapsed, as one of the issues being raise in the appeal filled before the Apex Court.

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh allowed the Company appeal filed by Dr. Datla and the court further issued the various directions as this petition was dismiised by the Board as only to ensure Dr. Datla doesn’t have sufficient shareholding to maintain a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1950, as it was being approached by Dr. Datla to the Company Law Board complaining that the holding of board meetings was illegal as an attempt was made to increase the number of members in the Company.

there is no protest by Dr. Renuka Datla regarding attendance of Mr. G.V. Rao. Dr. Renuka Datla also participated in the Board Meetings dated 22nd August 2013 and 25th September 2013, without any protest for continuation of Mr. G.V. Rao as its Director as in the resolution passed. The latter which was placed in the meeting of the Board on 9th April 2013, seeking withdrawal of his resignation as on 6th April 2013, G.V Rao submitted his resignation letter and further which it was later withdrawn by G.V Rao on 9th April 2013. As on 20th March 2013 the late Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla as the directors of the Company were Biological E. Ltd are Dr. Renuka Datla and one G.V Rao.

The bench comprising of Justice Vineet Saran and the justice JK Maheshwari clarified that the said principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved and that ‘Fraud’ is a clear exception.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking




The Supreme Court in the case Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal and Or’s observed that women of older age groups are being forced into prostitution after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and further the court ordered the State of West Bengal to look into the issue that in South 24 Parganas District of West Bengal.

The traffickers who were finding it difficult to get hold of young women due to the lockdown had shifted focus and by taking advantage of their acute poverty which was being worsened by the pandemic engaged older women from West Bengal’s costa regions in prostitution. An article was referred by the Amicus, The Article covered the plight of the women in the Sunderban Delta region of West Bengal and stated and noted that the pandemic coupled with climate change is now pushing older women and even the grandmothers into the trade, the Article was published on the website of The Print.

The pandemic that has stretched on for more than two years, it was said by the activists working in the area and this made them vulnerable to traffickers who found it difficult to procure young women and minor girls and shifted focus to middle aged women from West Bengal’s coastal regions due to their abject poverty.

No precautionary measure are taken by the State Government though the State Government is aware it further request the State Government to look upon the issue as due to the pandemic In South 24 Parganas (West Bengal), aged women are being used for this purpose for their poverty.

The Bench asked the Counsel representing the State of West Bengal to look into this issue and respond when the matter is put up for hearing on 05.17.2022., At the request of the Amicus the bench directed.

The Bench Comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and the justice B.R. Gavai observed that the older women in South 24 Parganas District of West Bengal, from poor families, especially after the onset of the pandemic, are being pushed into prostitution and the Amicus further alleged though the State Government aware of the same but the State Government have not taken any precautionary measures. The Bench noted while hearing a plea seeking various benefits for sex workers across the country, Amicus Curaie, Mr. Piyush K. Roy apprised it that, as per news reports.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court sets aside POCSO conviction; TN custom is of marriage of girl with maternal uncle



The Supreme Court in the case K Dhandapani vs State observed while hearing a plea that after noticing that he had married the prosecutrix and had two children, a man accused in a POCSO case, the court set aside the conviction.

The Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. Thereafter the Court said that it has been informed of the custom in Tamil Nādu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. if the accused-appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move for modification of this Order, further being clarified by the Court. The bench is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court, while considering the facts and circumstances of the Case.

The Court observed, while allowing the appeal that the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix is not legal and it was submitted by the state in an appeal that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and the second child was born when she was 17 years.

the prosecutrix stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life, the statement given by her was being noticed by the Court. the allegations submitted by the

the appellant against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her and that he married the prosecutrix and they have two children, submitted before the Apex Court.

Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and reading with the Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n). the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix who is the accused in the said case was being convicted under the said sections and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Madras High Court.

The Bench comprising of Justice L Nageswara Rao and the justice B R Gavai observed while rejecting the objection raised by the State which contended that the marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment that the court have been informed about the custom in Tamil Nādu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle and on the ground of reality and to disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix, The Court cannot shut its eyes.

Continue Reading