Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Allowing Ritual Of Devotees Rolling Over Plantain Leaves On Which Food Was Eaten By Others

The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan set aside an order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan in May 2024. The court noted that whether such a practice was against the public morality or order could not be decided by the High Court at this point since the Supreme Court was already seized of a similar issue arising from the Karnataka High Court.

“However, such a practice, whether would go against the public morality or constitutional morality is a matter to be gone into, which, cannot be decided by this Corut at this juncture, in view of the issue in a similar lis arising out of the High Court of Karnataka having been seized off and pending with an order of stay before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4543 of 2017 in the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. Adivasi Budakattu Hitarakshana Vedike Karnataka and others,” the court said.

At the same time, the court opined that the practice did not appear to directly offend the public order or morality. With respect to public health, the court noted that there was no proof, document or literature to suggest that the practice of rolling over the used leaves would be a health hazard. The court noted that when a particular group wanted to perform the ritual to fulfil their vow, believing that they would get the blessings of god, it could not be said to offend the public order. Agreeing that there was no scientific proof for such practices, the court observed that every religious practice was based on belief and scientific evidence could not be sought for the same.

“Scientifically we cannot ask any such proof for such kind of belief. All religious belief is only based on the long standing belief and the customs being followed by people at large or a group of people. Every such religious practice is made by the devotees of any religion only on the basis of belief, for which no scientific proof can be sought for,” the court said.

The court, however, noted that it could not decide on whether the practice violated the constitutional morality as a similar matter was already pending before the Supreme Court in which a stay had also been granted.

The court also noted that a division bench of the High Court in 2015 had already held against such practice, and thus, the single judge could not have nullified the order of a higher bench. The division bench noted that the single judge had refused to follow the earlier division bench, stating that the same suffered from the vice of nonjoinder of necessary parties as the devotees were not impleaded, and this approach in declaring the earlier order null was absolutely unlawful and unjustifiable.

The court made it clear that even if the single judge had doubts about the order of a higher bench, the lesser forum could have referred the matter to a full bench. The court added that as per judicial discipline, the single judge could not have assumed jurisdiction and held the division bench order null.

“Since it is a settled proposition of law in the realm of judicial discipline that even if it is a wrong judgment in the opinion of the lesser forum of a higher judiciary, the same cannot be touched upon unless it is referred for a larger forum, if it is coequal forum or bench and if it is a lesser forum certainly binding on them. This basic judicial discipline have to be strictly maintained, as without which, among the judicial fraternity no uniformity of decision can be possible, thereby it would give an alarming signal to the general litigant public who may raise doubt over the decision making process of the higher judicial forum,” the court observed.

Background

In 2015, a division bench of the Madras High Court directed the authorities to not let anyone perform the Angapradakshan. The single judge had noted that though the court had its own limitations to interfere in religious practices and customs, no human being could be allowed to be degraded by following any practice or custom in the name of religion.

The original petitioner, wanting to perform the ritual, had approached the authorities seeking permission. His request was rejected by the authorities citing the order of the court. He thus approached the court.

While allowing the ritual, the single judge observed that a man had every right to perform Angapradakshinam, and this right was protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21, and 25(1) of the Constitution. The single judge also observed that the right to privacy includes also includes one's spiritual orientation and thus allows a person to perform such religious practices as one deemed fit. The single judge also added that the individual had a right to carry out the religious vow undertaken by him when he believed that such an act would confer a spiritual benefit on him.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.R.Elango Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Govt. Pleader, Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Vanchinathan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Mr.Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Mr.K.Suresh, Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Govt. Pleader, Mr.T.Senthil Kumar APP, Mr.R.Narayanan, Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Madhavan

Case Title: The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

Case No: W.A.(MD).Nos.986 and 1261 of 2024