CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
Keywords:
Public order, Reasonable restriction, Religion, Religious freedom, TranquilityAbstract
Maintenance of public order is always considered to be the primary duty of the state. Right to religious practice is a very sensitive issue. Likelihood of clash between believers of one religion and another while exercising their religious practice which may lead to violation of public order of the state is very high. In order to maintain public order among the people of the society while they exercise religious freedom, lawmakers of our country have taken keen steps. Various legal provisions for the management of public order and tranquillity have been comprehensively formulated. The judiciary has asserted that the state authorities have been given police powers to solve like nature of issue which runs parallel to the guarantee given by the Constitution to an individual.
References
1. Article 25(1)of the Constitution of India
2. George H. Dession . Sanctions, Law and Public Order, 1 Vand. L. Rev. 8 (1947)
3. Second Administrative Reform Commission, Public Order, Fifth report, June 2007, p.13
4. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law, 2002, p.132
5. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 2015, p.251.
6. AIR 1950 SC 124, 1950 Cri L J 1514, [1950] 1 SCR 594
7. AIR 1950 SC 129: 1950 Cri L J 1525
8. AIR 1957 SC 620, p. 624;1957 Cri L J 1006
9. AIR 1960 SC 633 : 1960 Cri L J 1002
10. Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehg arh, AIR 1960 SC 633,p. 640.
11. Id., p. 641.
12. Id., p. 645.
13. AIR 1963 SC 812, 1963 SCR Suppl. (1) 789.
14. Rule 4 -B lays down that no Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any Service Association of Government servants: (a) which has not, within a period of six months from its formation, obtained the recognition of the Government under the Rules prescribed in that behalf, or (b) recognition in respect of which has been refused or withdrawn by the Government under the said Rules. The case against the respondent is that he has contravened both these Rules.
15. AIR 1961S C 884, 1961 SCR (3) 423
16. AIR 1966 SC 740 : 1966CriL J608.
17. AIR 1970 SC 1228: 1970CriL J1136
18. Arun Ghosh, AIR 1970 SC 1228, p. 1229
19. AIR 1971 SC 2486.
20. Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M., Manghyre, AIR 1971 SC 2486, p. 2493
21. Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M., Manghyre, AIR 1971 SC 2486, p. 2494
22. Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M., Manghyre, AIR 1971 SC 2486, p. 2500
23. Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M., Manghyre, AIR 1971 SC 2486, p. 2492
24. AIR1972SC 1656, 1972CriLJ1006, (1972)3SCC 831.
25. Rama Muthuramalingamv. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, reported in 2004(5) CTC 554
26. Arver v. US, (1918) 293 US 366
27. Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, (1934) 293 US 245
28. Gulam Abbas v. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 1268.
29. Acharya M aharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098
30. Rex v. Leman, (1971) 1 All ER 898.
31. Chandanmal v. State of West Bengal, (1986) Cr. L. J.
32. Veerabrahman v. State of A.P., AIR 1959 AP 572.
33. Jamaat-e-Islami v. Union of In dia, (1995) 1 SCC 428: 1994 (Supp -6) SCR 316, p.320.
34. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620: (1957) SCR 860.
35. Siddique v. State, AIR 1954 All 756.
36. Shaik Piru Bux v. Kalandi Pati, AIR 1970 SC 1985: (1969) 2 SCR 563.
37. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commisssioner of Police, AIR 1984 SC 51
38. (1984) 1 SCC 81
39. main Writ Petition No. 467,5 of 1978, referred on November 3, 1981,
40. 1988 AIR 775, 1988 SCR (2)1011
41. 2005 (3) L W 289 JCLJ (2020) 20–31 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 31
42. This was a PIL to prevent the Hindu Awareness General Meetin g scheduled to be conducted on 12.04.2015 at 04.00 p.m. at Arumani Junction, Soorakattu Vilai, Kanyakumari District.
43. Decided on 21 September, 2017, available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/103849130/
44. (2011) 2 SCC 490
45. Decided on 12 March, 2018, available a t http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162892047/ Cite this Article Joby Bhasker . Constitutional Perspective of Restrictions on Religious Practice . Jurisprudence. 2020; 3(2): 20–31p.
