The Gujarat High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition questioning the Hindu rituals performed on the court premises in the presence of the Chief Justice and other judges during the Golden jubilee celebrations of the High Court last year.
A Division Bench comprising justices Jayant Patel and J. C. Upadhaya reserved the order after about 90 minutes arguments, at times heated, between the Bench and the advocate of the petitioner, Rajesh Solanki, a local journalist.
The petitioner challenged the “bhoomi-poojan” ceremony performed by Chief Justice S. J. Mukhopadhyaya, and others claiming that it amounted to violation of constitutional provisions. It was claimed that the State being defined under article 12 of the Constitution, was required to restrain itself from being associated with any religious faith. It was further claimed that the High court being a public body and protector of the rights of citizens, should also restrain itself from being associated with any religious faith.
The petitioner's counsel, Girish Patel, contended that India being a secular state, any part of it could not sponsor or propagate any religion. Referring to the Golden jubilee function, Mr. Patel contended that it was not a personal matter of any of the dignitaries and was a State function organised by the court administration. It was further contended that performing such rituals at the government or the State functions was violative of neutrality of the State and amounted to discrimination to others. He further contended that this would also amount to hurting feelings of those who did not believe in any religion but would still have to be present at the function being either the members of the staff, the or the Bench.
He also contended that such small breaches and the careless attitude about the impact would ultimately result into destroying the constitutional mandates. Raising other points Mr. Patel posed questions to the Bench. “What if there was a Chief Justice belonging to Muslim, Christian or any other religion or having different belief, would he allow such rituals? And if not then what would happen if they wished to perform rituals as per their belief. Would it not amount to breach of constitutional provisions?” the advocate asked.
Earlier, the Bench raised various questions to the petitioner for which he sought time to engage lawyer. The Bench asked as to how the said ritual amounted to exploit anyone's sentiments. The Bench also asked to show any specific law or constitutional provision under which performing such ritual and offering of prayer by dignitaries present at the occasion could be termed illegal or unconstitutional. The Bench questioned as to how an undue advantage was given to any particular religion and there was discrimination due to the said ritual's performance at the function.
Earlier a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice himself had refused to hear the suggesting that it be referred to another Bench in which he was not a member. Following the refusal by the first Bench, the matter was referred to the Bench of Justices Patel and Upadhaya. .
