The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the dominant concentration of a religious community in an area or neighbourhood could not be a ground for police or State authorities to deny permission to another religious community to hold prayer meetings or public events there.
“We are living in a society in which there are homogeneous communities. But do not prevent these events only because ‘A’ or ‘B’ community is living in that area,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta, was hearing a petition challenging Tamil Nadu Police’s order prohibiting the conduct of ‘sangalpa yagam’ event in front of the Sri Bhagavathyamman temple and special alms-giving at A. Vellodu village in Dindigul district in connection with the Ayodhya temple consecration on January 22.
The Dindigul Police, on January 20, denied permission to the temple administrators on the ground that the area of A. Vellodu village was “predominantly inhabited by Christians”.
“Due to the lower number of Hindu residents in this village, there is a possibility of encountering cultural sensitivities or legal complications related to public peace and morality,” the January 20 police order reasoned.
“So, wherever there are minorities, the Hindus will never be able to hold prayer meetings… Here, the Hindus are in the minority. You [Tamil Nadu government] are saying that if they are allowed to hold prayer meetings, there will be a problem… Is that a reason,” Justice Datta asked the State’s Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari.
Mr. Tiwari asked what if the applicants for permission wanted to carry out a procession in front of a mosque.
“Then you regulate it. You have the power,” Justice Datta responded.
Mr. Tiwari said the order to reject the permission in this case was taken after considering the sensitivity of the particular community living in the area.
“Do not reject permission for this reason. If we allow it [police ban] in one case, we will have to do it for other cases too. This [high concentration of a particular community in a particular area] cannot be a ground for rejection of permission,” Justice Khanna said.
