I was born on 5th February. This is Article No. 502. This blog was born on 21st December, 2014.

Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman in Sabarimala Temple, covered previous decisions of SC on scope and effect of religious freedom contained in Articles 25 and 26.

I highlight hereby all decisions mentioned. I bow down to: i) every religion, ii) every religious thought, body, centre and iii) My Lords.

I have little faith in Supreme Court Judges pronouncing on matters as mentioned below. Of course, there will be a Chief Justice of India, Justice Ray and there shall be a Justice Indu Malhotra. However, even they tread difficult roads, unnecessary for them to tread. There must a separate Supreme Court with Judges who are born to protect and propagate religion.

_____

Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman in Sabarimala Temple

Nar Hari Sastri, 1952 SCR 849 was concerned with Temple at Badrinath. In chronological sequence, next comes Shirur Math, viz., Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, 1954 SCR 1005. Close on heels followed Ratilal Panachand Gandhi, 1954 SCR 1055. We now come to Mulki Temple. In this Judgment, namely, Sri Venkataramana Devaru, 1958 SCR 895 an Ancient Temple dedicated to Sri Venkataramana, renowned for its sanctity, was before Court in a challenge to The Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act (V of 1947). In Durgah Committee, Ajmer, (1962) 1 SCR 383 this Court was faced with a challenge to The Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955. In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb, 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 496 this Court struck down The Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, with Chief Justice Sinha dissenting. In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj, (1964) 1 SCR 561 otherwise referred to as Nathdwara Temple, this Court was concerned with validity of The Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959.

In Seshammal, (1972) 2 SCC 11 validity of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 was questioned by Hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of some Ancient Temples of Tamil Nadu.

We now come to a very important Judgment contained in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 2 SCR 611. It dealt with The Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 and The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, both of which statutes were upheld by Court stating, they fall within exception of “public order” as both of them prohibit conversion from one religion to another by use of force, allurement, or other fraudulent means. In an instructive passage this Court turned down, word ‘propagate’ in Article 25(1) would include conversion. Court held:

“We have no doubt that it is in this sense, word ‘propagate’ has been used in Article 25(1), for what Article 25(1) grants is not right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered, Article 25(1) guarantees “freedom of conscience” to every citizen, and not merely to followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulates, there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one‘s own religion because if a person purposely undertakes conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread tenets of his religion, that would impinge on “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all citizens alike.

The meaning of guarantee under Article 25 came up for consideration in this Court in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay [1954 SCR 1055, 1062-63] and it was held as follows:

“Thus, subject to restrictions which this Article imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for edification of others.”

This Court has given correct meaning and we find no justification it grants a fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated, freedom of religion enshrined is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with like freedom of persons following other religions. What is freedom for one, is freedom for other, in equal measure, and there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.” (at pp. 616-617)

In S.P. Mittal, (1983) 1 SCC 51 this Court upheld The Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980. We then come to Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta, (1983) 4 SCC 522. This Judgment concerned itself with whether “Ananda Marga” is a separate religious denomination. In Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, (1997) 4 SCC 606 this Court upheld The Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. In Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106 this Court held, appointment of a person who is not a Malayala Brahmin as a Pujari or Priest of a Temple in Kerala as constitutionally valid. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy, (2014) 5 SCC 75 this Court dealt with claim by Podhu Dikshitars (Smarthi Brahmins) to administer properties of a Temple of Lord Natraja at Sri Sabanayagar Temple at Chidambaram. In Riju Prasad Sarma, (2015) 9 SCC 461 this Court dealt with customs based on religious faith which dealt with Families of Priests of a Temple called Maa Kamakhya Temple. In Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam, (2016) 2 SCC 725 this Court was concerned with a Government Order, issued by Government of Tamil Nadu, which stated, any person who is a Hindu and possesses requisite qualification and training, can be appointed as an Archaka in Hindu Temples.

A conspectus of these Judgments, therefore, leads to propositions.

_____

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 2 SCR 611, cited by Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, considered important and instructive, was Chief Justice Ray’s words. I bow down further.

Jai Hanuman.

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677 clarified, while right to propagate religion is protected under Article 25, it does not extend to conversions brought about by force or fraud. The statutory limitation on who may initiate proceedings, therefore, strikes a balance by ensuring genuine grievances of those subjected to unlawful conversion are redressed, while simultaneously safeguarding autonomy, dignity and liberty of individuals from unwarranted intrusion and misuse of criminal process under pretext of protecting religious freedom by persons masquerading as custodians of religion prodded by oblique motivations.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 123 of 2023] decided on 17.10.2025.