Express News Service
NEW DELHI: With controversy raging in Gurugram over Friday namaz in public spaces and a former Rajya Sabha MP approaching the Supreme Court over the right to practise religion, a look at the precedents reveals that various court rulings failed to settle the law in question.
Former MP Mohammed Adeeb had moved the apex court asking for action against Haryana officials for failing to comply with earlier directions to curb communal sentiments resulting in hate crimes.
In the Saghir Ahmad judgment of 1955, the Supreme Court held that people are entitled to use public roads and streets, but this right is limited by similar rights of every other citizen to use them. In the M Ismail Faruqui case the same year, the court ruled that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam and namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open. At the same time, it said the right to worship, guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, does not extend to the right to worship at every place.
In 2018, the apex court came across a question as to whether public premises and parks can be used for performing ‘Ram Leela’, ‘Mata Ki Chowki’ and other religious functions. Any direction in the 2018 case, which is yet to come up for its first hearing, will settle the law on the contentious issues.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution lays down that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, while sub-clause (b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 25 says everyone is entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely practise and propagate religion, subject to the limitations of public order, morality and health. Article 26 entitles every religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, but this right is also subject to public order, morality and health.
