Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta
Religious freedom vs public order — what counts as an “essential practice” under Articles 25 & 26.
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court balanced religious freedom with public order. It held that the Tandava dance, performed in public streets with skulls and weapons, is not an essential religious practice of Ananda Marga. Section 144 orders that restricted such processions were valid.
Issues
- Is Ananda Marga a religion or a religious denomination?
- Is the Tandava dance an essential religious practice of Ananda Marga?
- Were the prohibitory orders (S.144 CrPC) valid?
Rules
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion—subject to public order, morality, and health.
Denominational rights to manage religious affairs—also subject to public order, morality, and health.
Facts (Timeline)
Timeline
A writ under Article 32 sought directions to allow Ananda Marga processions with Tandava dance in public places across West Bengal.
Claim: Tandava is a daily religious rite since 1966, involving a skull, small knife, trishul, lathi, and damru.
The Commissioner of Police repeatedly ordered that assemblies must not carry weapons, tridents, knives, lathis, explosives, or skulls.
29 March 1982: A fresh order under Section 144 CrPC imposed similar restraints; permission for a procession with Tandava was rejected.
Respondents reported a prior procession despite prohibitions; it turned violent. The assembly was declared unlawful and police intervened.
Arguments
Petitioners (Ananda Marga)
- Tandava is an essential religious rite introduced by the preceptor in 1966.
- Processions with the dance on public streets are part of religious expression.
- Prohibitory orders violate Articles 25 and 26.
Respondents (State/Police)
- Orders target public safety: no weapons or skulls; not a ban on faith.
- Past procession with weapons became violent; precautions are reasonable.
- Even if denominational, the practice must be essential to get protection.
Judgment (Held)
- Petitioners have no fundamental right to perform Tandava dance on public streets with weapons/skulls under Articles 25 or 26.
- Section 144 CrPC orders were valid; they addressed weapons and objects risking public order.
- The dance itself was not totally banned; only dangerous modes in public spaces were restricted.
Ratio Decidendi
A practice gets constitutional protection only if it is essential to the religion/denomination. Even then, it is subject to public order. Carrying weapons or skulls in crowded public spaces fails that test.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the essential religious practice test.
- Shows limits of religious displays in public order contexts.
- Guides police powers under Section 144 CrPC.
Key Takeaways
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “E.P.O.” — Essential practice?, Public order?, Objects (weapons/skulls) barred.
- Ask if the practice is essential to the faith.
- Check public order risks in streets.
- Limit dangerous objects; faith ≠ weapons.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Do Articles 25/26 protect Tandava processions with weapons/skulls on public streets?
Rules: Articles 25 & 26 (subject to public order); essential practice doctrine; S.144 CrPC for preventive orders.
Application: Tandava, as claimed in public with weapons/skulls, is not essential; risks to public order justify Section 144 restrictions.
Conclusion: No fundamental right to perform Tandava in that manner in public; targeted prohibitions are valid.
Glossary
- Essential Practice
- A practice central to the religion; without it, the faith loses its identity.
- Section 144 CrPC
- Emergency power to prevent danger to public order and safety.
- Public Order
- Community peace and safety; a ground to limit religious displays.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now