Ram Gopal Tripathi vs Sarvajeet Herbert and Others

M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Amit Negi has appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri J. Nagar for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Petitioner claims to be a social worker.

The prayer in this petition is for a mandamus restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from holding/conducting ''Yeshu Darbar'' in the premises of Allahabad Agricultural Institute (deemed University). It is alleged in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the petition that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are holding ''Yeshu Darbar'' on the premises of Allahabad Agricultural Institute for religious conversion. It is alleged in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition that many agents are roaming around the villages and narrate them miraculous stories and persuade them to attend ''Yeshu Darbar'' in Agricultural Institute in which a mantra of Chengai is being given and these activities are used for religious conversion. It is alleged that poor persons are being defrauded by giving them a belief that Dr. R.B. Lal. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad Agricultural Institute (deemed University) is a gifted person from Jesus Christ and all ailments and diseases will be cured by Dr. R.B. Lal by touching their body. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition it is alleged that in the gathering of Yeshu Darbar poor and illiterate persons are lured for conversion of religion by fraudulent methods and this may result in untoward incidents endangering the social fabric which may result in communal riots.

India is a free, democratic and secular country. Article 25(1) of the Constitution states:

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, practise and propagate religion.

Thus, from a plain reading of Article 25, it is evident that the Respondents are entitled to hold religious gatherings. Article 19(1)(b) entitles all citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms. Hence, Respondents are certainly entitled to hold "Yeshu Darbar'' or any other kind of religious gathering, provided it is done peacefully and without breaking the law. Hindus, Muslims and other religious communities can also hold gatherings likewise. This is the fundamental right of all citizens in the country, and this Court or the authorities cannot prohibit such gatherings.

India is not a country belonging to Hindus alone. It belongs to all citizens, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Jew, etc. Everybody is equal in our country. No one is a second class citizen in our country. India is a secular and not a feudal country like Pakistan in which non-Muslims and even certain sects of Muslims like Shiyas or Ahmadiyas are regarded as second class citizens and are persecuted.

We make it clear that Article 25(1) is subject to public order, morality and health. Hence, the authorities can certainly see to it that the gatherings in ''Yeshu Darbar'' or elsewhere do not adversely affect public order, morality or health. Citizens of all religions and communities are equal and first rate citizens of our country and we are proud that all religions are treated equally in our country. It is because of the wisdom and far sightedness of our Founding Fathers who provided for secularism in our Constitution that India is surviving even now. With so much diversity (so many castes, religion, lingual and ethnic groups etc.), it could not have survived otherwise.

We, however, hasten to add that if these gatherings are intended to mislead people by making false and untenable claims designed to lure poor, incredulous and ignorant masses into joining a particular fold, faith or religious group by false exaggerated claims as to possession of divine and supernatural powers, the same will certainly attract the attention of the authorities and the Courts alike which can prohibit or strike down such activities. The Court cannot countenance any abuse or misuse of such gatherings which may result in chain and disorder. For the present, we have not found in the petition any such specific allegation so as to warrant interference by this Court.

Subject to the comments and observations made by us herein above, this petition is dismissed.