AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The misconception of the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India seems to have prompted the petitioners, 16 in all, to file this writ petition. The petitioners are natural persons professing Christianity as their religion. In the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in manufacturing and selling any liquor like Brandy, Rum and Whisky with the emblem or wrapper containing the photos of Church and Holy Christ and the expression "The Christian Brothers" as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and for a consequential order directing the respondents to immediately stop using the emblem or any other wrapper containing the aforesaid figures and words and pass such other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The above relief is sought on the basis of the following factual matrix :
The petitioners profess Christianity as their religion; the first respondent is manufacturing different kinds of liquors like brandy, rum and whisky and supply the same to the second respondent and several other retail dealers in the State of Andhra Pradesh; the wrappers affixed to the containers of the liquor disclose that the first respondent is manufacturing the liquor for and on behalf of the second respondent and the second respondent is marketing the same in the entire State" of Andhra Pradesh; the respondents issue advertisement in the newspapers and other media for promoting the sales of the products; the liquor is being marketed under the brand name of "The Christian Brothers"; the monogram carries the emblem of Church and "also the name "The Christian Brothers" and they are printed not only on the wrappers but also in all the advertisements published in the media; the advertisement is objectionable and offends the sentiments of all the Christians; the emblem contains the Cross which is the symbol of Christianity and therefore is highly objectionable; the objectionable act of the respondents offends feelings and sentiments of Christians and it is highly outraging and insulting; criticising the Christianity in this fashion is an offence and is prohibited by the Constitution of India; the symbols of Cross and the Church and the expression "The Christian Brothers" are wantonly and deliberately chosen by the respondents to wound the sentiments of the minority, probably for generating more sales of liquor; the complained acts of the respondents tend to send wrong signal that the Christians are habituated to drinking and the Church and the Jesus Christ support manufacture of liquor for consumption of their followers, and this impression sought to be created is totally baseless, and on the other hand, Christianity and its scriptures forbid the manufacture and consumption of intoxicants.
The first respondent, namely, Khemani Distilleries Private Limited is said to be a private limited company whereas the second respondent is the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to the Department of Excise. At the threshold, I should state that the pleading of the petitioners is as vague as it could be. The role of the second respondent in the manufacture of liquors and their marketing., is not set out intelligibly and specifically in the pleading. The affidavit is also silent about the specific right guaranteed under the Constitution which is alleged to have been violated. That is why this Court at the time of hearing for admission on 21-9-1998 drew the attention of Sri M.S.K. Sastry, learned senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioners to the lacuna in the pleading. The learned senior Counsel sought time for filing better affidavit to furnish relevant and material particulars and to take appropriate legal grounds. Although the case underwent number of adjournments, ultimately no belter affidavit was filed. On the other hand, Sri M.S.K. Sastry submitted that the Court might decide the writ petition on the basis of the pleading already filed and documents placed before the Court.
Although no specific ground is taken in the affidavit contending that the complained acts of the respondents 1 and 2 violated the right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution, the only contention of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing for admission was that the complained acts on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 violated/violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Though this ground was mentioned by the learned senior Counsel, the learned senior Counsel was not in a position to place any relevant material to support this plea or to show that the complained acts of the respondents 1 and 2 infringed the freedom of conscience and religious freedom guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The freedom of conscience and the religious freedom guaranteed under our Constitution are dealt with by a group of four Articles viz., 25, 26, 27 and 28. Article 25 entitles all persons in India, the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religions. Of course, like any other right, this is also subject to certain limitation which can be imposed by the State in the interest of public order, morality and health etc. The State has also been authorised to enact regulatory and social reform measures. Likewise, Article 26 entitles religious denominations to manage its own religious and charitable institutions and affairs. Article 27 gives immunity from taxes imposed for the benefits of any particular religion. Article 28 gives us a glimpse of secularism, when it forbids imparting of religious instructions in State educational institutions. Since it is not the contention of the petitioners that the complained acts on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 violate Articles 26, 27 and 28, there is no need for the Court to review the impugned actions to see whether the impugned acts violated Articles 26, 27 and 28. The only question that falls for consideration is whether the complained act on the part of the second respondent-State Government violates the religious freedom guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Article 25 reads:
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, praclise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the Slate from making any law-(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Clause (1) of Article 25 guarantees two freedoms ; freedom of conscience and the freedom freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. Article 25 guarantees that every person in India shall have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to restrictions imposed by the State on the following grounds :
(i) public order, morality and health;
(ii) other provisions of the Constitution;
(iii) regulation of non-religious activity associated with religious practice;
(iv) Social welfare and reform;
(v) throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus.
In ordinary parlance, the word ''conscience'' means a knowledge or sense of right or wrong, moral judgment that opposes the violation of previously recognised ethical principles and that leads to feelings of guilt if one violates such a principle. Religion, in a broad sense, includes all forms of faith and worship as also the system of beliefs and doctrines regarded by those who profess any particular religion as conducive to their spiritual well-being and includes also a code of ethical rules for its followers. Religion may not necessarily be theistic. Buddhism and Jainism in India are atheistic religions. The basis of religion is the system of beliefs and doctrines regarded by its adherents to be conducive to their spiritual well-being. Religion is not necessarily confined to an opinion, doctrine and belief but extends also to its outward expression in acts. The latter is within the scope of this Article, meaning thereby that its protection extends also to rituals, observances, ceremonies, modes of worship, regarded as integral part of any religion including even food and dress. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and Others, , the Supreme Court observed that whatever binds a man to his own conscience and whatever moral or ethical principles regulate lives of men would constitute religion in the constitutional sense.
In the instant case, it is not and it cannot be the case of the petitioners that the complained acts of the respondents violated their freedom of conscience. The only argument of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the complained acts directly violated the religious freedom guaranteed to the members who profess Christianity as their religion. Therefore, the only limited question that falls for consideration is whether the allegation is well-founded.
It is true that the freedom to act in the exercise of one''s religious beliefs includes the freedom to propagate that belief without let or hindrance from any other individual or the State. I fail to understand how the complained acts of the respondents would come in the way of the petitioners and other similarly circumstanced persons from propagating their religious beliefs. Manufacture, sale and purchase of liquor are secular acts. Secular activities which are not integral part of a religious practice do not fall within the purview of Article 25 or Article 26. The exercise of religious freedom means performance of outward acts in pursuance of religious belief, subject of course to State regulation imposed to secure public order, health and morals. Propagation of religion includes preaching and extolling one''s own religion and to some extent disputing the efficacy of another''s religion, regard being had to any law of blasphemy or profanity. What is protected is the propagation, be it in temple, church, monastery or parlour meeting, Unless it is shown that even such secular act is prohibited by injunction granted by the religion and such injunction is regarded as integral part of the religion, it cannot be said that violation of such injunction would impinge upon the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. In the instant case, firstly, nothing is produced before the Court to demonstrate that Christianity prohibits manufacture and consumption of liquor and that that injunction is an integral part of Christianity. Alternatively, it may be noted that even assuming that Christianity prohibits manufacture and consumption of liquor by persons professing that religion, it is nobody''s case that the Stale Government has done anything to compel the members who profess Christianity as their religion to manufacture or consume liquor against their violation or beliefs. The petitioners and other members who profess Christianity are totally free not to manufacture and not to consume liquor. Merely because the State Government purchases the liquor from the first respondent Company and distributes the same to consumers through its outlets, it cannot be said that the State Government is forcing the members who profess Christianity to consume liquor.
As regards the complaint relating to the emblem of a Church and the name "The Christian Brothers", suffice it to state that the learned Senior Counsel was not in a position to demonstrate how the act of the first respondent, a private legal entity, in choosing the monogram containing the emblem of a Church and the name "The Christian Brothers" violates the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners and others professing Christianity as their religion, except stating that the impugned acts hurt their feeling. Hurting a feeling of a person by another does not necessarily give a cause of action to bring the legal action against the latter, The alleged hurt should hurt an interest or a right recognised and protected by law, and in the instant case, the right guaranteed under Article 25. Merely because the petitioners feel hurt by the emblem and the name chosen by the first respondent, private person, without anything more, that fact ilself will not result in the violation of the right guaranteed to them under Article 25 of the Constitution.
There is a clear-cut distinction between belief and propagation of belief. Belief is an inward act formed at the intellect level whereas propagation of belief is an outward act grounded on the belief. Propagation of a religions tenet may partake the nature of a secular act, but to bring such secular act under the purview of Article 25, such secular act should be regarded as essential and integral part of the concerned religion. It is trite to state that naming a product or a premise is a secular act, but the intellectual process at the mind level culminating in the naming a product or a premise for carrying on a trade or business may involve participation of the religious belief of the person who names it. A man may name his liquor shop as "Venkateswara Wines" or "Christh Paradise" knowing fully well that the trade in liquor is obnoxious and religiously not approved. Why does he do like that ? It is his religious belief that if he names the premises in which he carries on his secular activity, the Almighty, Lord Venkateswara or the Merciful Christh, as the case may be, will guard, protect and insulate the secular activity carried on by him from the evil, destructive and harmful forces, whatever that may be. By naming a product or premise after the name of God or Goddess, Prophet or Saint, the namer does not tend to propagate that the secular activity in which he is involved is approved by the God or the Goddess or Prophet or Saint, as the case may be, but what he intends to propagate is his religious belief that if one names a product or a premise after the name of God or Goddess or Saint or Prophet, these God, Goddess, Saint or Prophet, as the case may be, would guard, protect and insulate his secular activities from the evil and destructive forces. This is grounded on the belief of the man and he undoubtedly has the freedom under Article 25 to propagate this belief unless that freedom is controlled and regulated or banned by the State on certain grounds already noted above. In the instant case, when the promoters and the managers of the first respondent Company thought it fit to market their product, namely, the liquor under the name "The Christian Brothers" carrying a monogram containing the emblem of Church and the Cross, they might have thought that if they did so, their secular activities would be guarded, protected and insulated from evil and harmful forces and effects. Article 25 itself recognises such freedom of the promoters and the managers of the first respondent-company. Undoubtedly, naming a product, being a secular act, the State has power to regulate and control the said secular act on permissible grounds. No law is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners to show that naming of the liquor and carrying of emblem of Church and Cross on the wrapper arc illegal under any law enacted by the competent Legislature or otherwise.
In the result and for the foregoing reasons writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.