9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1982 (11) TMI 169 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Aurobindoism-if one may be excused for using the word Aurobindoism to describe what Shri Aurobindo taught and practised and what he was understood by his followers to have taught and practised-was a religion? Whether the followers of Shri Aurobindo could be called a religious denomination/ Has the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Art. 26 been infringed by the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980? Held that - If the society consists of the disciples and followers of Sri Aurobindo, if its primary object is to profess, practise and propagate the system of Integral Yoga, and, if, therefore, it is a section of a religious denomination, the circumstance that it is engaged in several secular activities and has represented itself to be a non-religious organisation for certain purposes cannot detract from the fact that it is a section of a religious denomination within the meaning of Art. 26 Therefore, we must hold, the Aurobindo Society is a section of a religious denomination within the meaning of the expression in Art. 26 of the Constitution. the administration of the property of a religious denomination is different from the right of the religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and that laws may be made which regulate the right to administer the property of a religious denomination. Questions merely relating to administration of properties belonging to a religious group or institution are not matters of religion to which clause (b) of Art. 26 applies. We are, therefore, of the view that the Auroville Emergency Provisions Act which provides for the taking over the management of Auroville for a limited period does not offend the rights guaranteed by Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and Scope of Religion and Religious Denomination 2. Legislative Competence of Parliament 3. Violation of Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution 4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution 5. Allegation of Mala Fides Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition and Scope of Religion and Religious Denomination The judgment explores the complex nature of defining "religion" and "religious denomination." The court acknowledges that religion is a term that is "hardly susceptible of any rigid definition." It is described as a system of beliefs or doctrines conducive to spiritual well-being, which may include rituals and observances. The court refers to previous judgments, such as the Shirur Mutt case, to highlight that religion extends beyond mere beliefs to include practices. The court also defines a "religious denomination" as a group with a common faith and organization, designated by a distinctive name. 2. Legislative Competence of Parliament The petitioners argued that the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980, falls under Entry 32 of List II (State List), making it beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. The court, however, concluded that the Act does not pertain to the incorporation, regulation, or winding up of a corporation but rather to the management of Auroville, which is a secular activity. The court held that even if the subject matter is not covered by any specific entry in List I or List III, it would fall under the residuary entry 97 of List I, thereby affirming Parliament's legislative competence. 3. Violation of Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution The petitioners contended that the Act violated their rights under Articles 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (protection of interests of minorities), and 30 (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions). The court examined the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and concluded that they do not constitute a religion but rather a philosophy. Therefore, neither the Society nor Auroville could be considered a religious denomination. Even if they were, the Act did not interfere with religious practices but only took over the management of Auroville, a secular activity. 4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution The petitioners argued that the Act was discriminatory and violated Article 14, as it singled out Sri Aurobindo Society for hostile treatment. The court held that the unique circumstances surrounding Auroville, including substantial government grants and international involvement, justified treating it as a class by itself. The court referred to previous judgments that allow for reasonable classification and concluded that the Act did not violate Article 14. 5. Allegation of Mala Fides The petitioners alleged that the Act was passed with mala fide intentions, influenced by individuals with personal grievances. The court rejected this argument, stating that allegations of mala fides are easier to make than prove. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the Act was passed at the behest of any individual with ulterior motives. Conclusion The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980, and concluding that it did not violate Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the Act was a necessary intervention to ensure the proper management of Auroville, a secular cultural township with significant national and international importance.
|
