ash

pil-139.10

1.

Dr.RanjeetSuryakantMohite,

2.

KishoreRamakantNazare,and

3.

SubhashSuryakantRanaware.

1.

)
)

)..

ig
h

Vs

C
ou

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
PUBLICINTERESTLITIGATIONNO.139OF2010

TheUnionofIndia,and

TheStateofMaharashtra.

ShriSurelS.ShahforthePetitioners.
ShriParagVyasforRespondentNo.1.
ShriS.N.Patil,AGPforRespondentNo.2.

)
)..

Respondents

om

ba
y

2.

Petitioners

CORAM:A.S.OKA&A.S.CHANDURKAR,JJ

DATEONWHICHSUBMISSIONSWEREHEARD:

22NDJULY2014

DATEONWHICHJUDGMENTISPRONOUNCED:

23RDSEPTEMBER2014

(SignedjudgmentpronouncedbyShriA.S.Oka,Jinaccordancewith
Rule 1(i) of Chapter XI of the Appellate Side Rules as Shri A.S.
Chandurkar, J is not available in Bombay and is sitting at Nagpur
Bench.)
JUDGMENT(PERA.S.OKA,J)
.

Noticeforfinaldisposalattheadmissionstagewasissued

on12thMarch2014.AveryinterestingissueisraisedbythePetitioners.

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

pil-139.10

ThecontentionofthePetitionersisthattheStatecannotcompelany

rt

citizen to disclose his religion while submitting forms and/or

C
ou

declarations.Thecontentionisthatacitizenhasarighttoclaimthat
hedoesnotbelieveinthephilosophyofanyreligionandtherefore,he
doesnotpracticeorprofessanyreligion.Thecontentioninshortisthat

2.

ig
h

acitizencanalwaysclaimthathebelongstoNoReligion.

The Petitioners claim to be the members of a registered

organizationbythenameFullGospelChurchofGodwhichisstated

tohavemorethan4,000members.TheUnionofIndiaandtheStateof
MaharashtraaretheRespondents.ThecasemadeoutinthePetitionis

ba
y

thatthesaidorganizationdoesbelieveintheexistenceofLordJesus
Christ,butdoesnotbelieveinanyreligionmuchlessChristianity.The

om

contentionofthePetitionersisthatthesaidorganizationbelievesthat
theLordJesusChristdesiredtohaveakingdomofheavenanddidnot
intendtoformanyreligion.ThecontentionofthePetitionersisthatthe
holybibleisentirelysilentaboutthereligion.

3.

ThePetitionersclaimthattheymadeanApplicationtothe

StateGovernmentPrintingPressfornotifyingthechangeofreligion.
Theywantedagazettenotificationtobeissuedrecordingthattheyare
nottheChristiansbuttheybelongtoNoReligion. TheApplications
wererejectedbytheGovernmentPrintingPress. Thatisthecauseof

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

pil-139.10

C
ou

PetitionisPrayerClause(A),whichreadsthus:

rt

actionforfilingthepresentPetition.Theonlysubstantiveprayerinthe

(A) ThatthisHonorableCourtbepleasedtoissue
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
orderordirectiontherebydirectingtherespondents
torecognizeNoReligionasaformofreligionand

ig
h

not to insist on writing/mentioning/specifying/

quotingreligioninanyofitsformsordeclarations.

The submission of the learnedcounsel appearingfor the

4.

PetitionersisbasedontheArticle25oftheConstitutionofIndia.His

ba
y

submissionisthattheStatecannotcompelanycitizentodisclosehis
religioninasmuchasthereisafreedomconferredbytheConstitution
on every citizen to claim that he does not practice or profess any

om

religion.HehasplacedrelianceonthedecisionsoftheApexCourtin
thecasesofRatilalPanachandGandhiandothersv.StateofBombayand
others1andS.P.Mittalv.UnionofIndiaandothers2.Hepointedoutthat
variousauthoritiesoftheStaterequirethecitizensandevenstudentsto
fillupvariousformsforvariouspurposes. Hesubmittedthatagainst
thecolumnofreligion,acitizenwhoisfillinguptheformhasarightto
statethathebelongstoNoReligion.

1
2

AIR 1954 SC 388

AIR 1983 SC 1

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

5.

pil-139.10

The learned AGP representing the Government of

rt

MaharashtraandthelearnedcounselrepresentingtheUnionofIndia

C
ou

invited the attention of the Court to Prayer Clause (A). Their

submissionisthatNoReligioncannotbetreatedasareligionora
form of religion. Their submission is that a Prayer Clause (A) as

6.

ig
h

framedcanneverbegranted.

Wehavegivencarefulconsiderationtothesubmissions.It

will be necessary to make a reference to the Article 25 of the

ConstitutionofIndia,whichreadsthus:

om

ba
y

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession,

practiceandpropagationofreligion.(1) Subject to
public order, morality and health and to the other
provisionsofthisPart,allpersonsareequallyentitled
to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess,practiseandpropagatereligion.
(2) Nothinginthisarticleshallaffecttheoperation
ofanyexistinglaworpreventtheStatefrommaking
anylaw
(a) regulatingorrestrictinganyeconomic,
financial, political or other secular
activitywhichmaybeassociatedwith
religiouspractice;
(b) providing for social welfare and
reformorthethrowingopenofHindu
religious institutions of a public
charactertoallclassesandsectionsof
Hindus.
ExplanationI.
The wearing and carrying of
kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the
professionoftheSikhreligion.

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

pil-139.10

C
ou

rt

ExplanationII. Insubclause(b)ofclause(2),the
referencetoHindusshallbeconstruedasincludinga
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or
Buddhistreligion,andthereferencetoHindureligious
institutionsshallbeconstruedaccordingly.

Consciencecanbedefinedasmoralsenseofrightorwrong
asappliedtoone'sownjudgmentandactions.Inthecaseof Ratilal
PanachandGandhiandothersv.StateofBombayandothers, the

ig
h

ApexCourtconsidered the conceptof religion. The ApexCourtheld

thus:

om

ba
y

12. The moot point for consideration, therefore, is

where is the line to be drawn between what are
matters of religion and what are not? Our
Constitutionmakershavemadenoattempttodefine
what religion is and it is certainly not possible to
frameanexhaustivedefinitionofthewordreligion
whichwouldbeapplicabletoallclassesofpersons.As
has been indicated in the Madras case referred to
above,thedefinitionofreligiongivenbyFields,J.in
theAmericancaseof Davis v. Beason1 doesnotseem
to us adequate or precise. The term religion' thus
observed the learned Judge in the case mentioned
above,hasreferencetoone'sviewsofhisrelationsto
his Creator and to the obligations they impose of
reverence for His Being and character and of
obediencetoHisWill.Itisoftenconfoundedwithcults
or form of worship of a particular sect, but is
distinguishablefromthelatter.Itmaybenotedthat
religion is not necessarily theistic and in fact
there are well known religions in India like
BuddhismandJainismwhichdonotbelieveinthe
existenceofGodorofanyIntelligentFirstCause.A
religionundoubtedlyhasitsbasisinasystemofbeliefs
and doctrines which are regarded by those who
professthatreligiontobeconducivetotheirspiritual
wellbeing,butitwouldnotbecorrecttosay,asseems
tohavebeensuggestedbyoneofthelearnedJudges

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

pil-139.10

C
ou

rt

oftheBombayHighCourt,thatmattersofreligionare
nothing but matters of religious faith and religious
belief.Areligionisnotmerelyanopinion,doctrineor
belief.Ithasitsoutwardexpressioninactsaswell.
(Emphasisadded)

InthecaseofSriSriSriLakshamanaYatendruluandothers
v.StateofA.Pandanother3,theApexCourtinParagraph14heldthus:

ig
h

14. Article25,asitslanguageamplifies,assuresto
every person subject to public order, health and
morality, freedom not only to entertain his religious
beliefs,asmaybeapprovedofbyhisjudgmentand
conscience, but also to exhibit his belief in such
outwardlyactashethinksproperandtopropagateor
disseminatehisideasfortheedificationofothers.

TheApexCourtinthecaseofCommr.ofPoliceandothersv.

om

ba
y

AcharyaJagadishwaranandaAvadhutaandanother5observedthus:

76. The full concept and scope of religious

freedomisthattherearenorestraintsupon
thefreeexerciseofreligionaccordingtothe
dictatesofonesconscienceorupontheright
to freely profess, practise and propagate
religion, save those imposed under the
police power of the State and the other
provisionsofPartIIIoftheConstitution.This
means the right to worship God according to
thedictatesofonesconscience.Mansrelation
tohisGodismadenoconcernoftheState.
Freedom of conscience and religious belief
cannot,however,besetuptoavoidthoseduties
whicheverycitizenowestothenatione.g.to
receive military training, to take an oath
expressing willingness to perform military
serviceandsoon.

3 (1996)8 SCC 705 at page 722

5 (2004)12 SCC 770 at page 802

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

Thoughthefreedomofconscienceandreligious
beliefareabsolute,therighttoactinexerciseof
amansfreedomofconscienceandfreedomof
religion cannot override public interest and
morals of the society and in that view it is
competent for the State to suppress such
religious activities which are prejudicial to
publicinterest.
(Emphasisadded)

7.

C
ou

rt

77.

pil-139.10

Clause(1)ofArticle25oftheConstitutionofIndiaisin

ig
h

two parts. The first part confers fundamental right to freedom of

conscience. The second part confers a right on a citizen to freely

profess,practiceorpropagateanyreligion.Wehavealreadydiscussed
theconceptsofconscienceandreligion.Thetermreligioncannotbe

ba
y

necessarilytheistic.Apartfromthefreedomofconscience,thereisa
fundamentalrighttofreedomofspeechandexpression.Articles19and
25conferafreedomofconscienceonacitizenwhichisafundamental

om

rightguaranteedbytheConstitutionofIndia.Asfarasthefreedomof
speechandexpressionisconcerned,itguaranteesthefreedomtoan
individualfromcompulsionastowhatheshallthinkandwhatheshall
say.Indiaisaseculardemocraticrepublic.TheStatehasnoreligion.
Thereisacompletefreedomforeveryindividualtodecidewhetherhe
wantstoadoptorprofessanyreligionornot.Hemaynotbelievein
anyreligion.Ifheisprofessingaparticularreligion,hecangiveupthe
religionandclaimthathedoesnotbelongtoanyreligion.Thereisno
lawwhichcompelsacitizenoranyindividualtohaveareligion.The
freedomofconscienceconferredbytheConstitutionincludesarightnot
::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

pil-139.10

toprofess,practiceorpropagateanyreligion.Therightoffreedomof

rt

conscienceconferredonacitizenincludesarighttoopenlysaythathe

C
ou

doesnotbelieve inanyreligionand,therefore,hedoesnotwantto
practice,professorpropagateanyreligion. Iftheparentsofacitizen
practiceanyparticularreligion,hehasafreedomofconsciencetosay

thathewillnotpracticeanyreligion.Thereisafreedomtoactasper

8.

ig
h

hisconscienceinsuchmatters.

FreedomofconscienceunderArticle25oftheConstitution

encompassesinitselfafreedomtoanindividualtotakeaviewthathe
doesnotbelongtoanyreligion.ThefreedomconferredbyArticle25

ba
y

oftheConstitutionalsoincludesarightofanindividualtoclaimthathe
isan'Atheist'. Asthefreedomofconscienceconfersafundamental

om

right to entertain a religious belief, it also confers a right on an

individualtoexpressanopinionthathedoesnotbelongtoanyreligion.

9.

NoauthoritywhichisaStatewithinthemeaningofArticle

12oftheConstitutionofIndiaoranyofitsagencyorinstrumentality
can infringe the fundamental right to freedom of conscience. Any
individualinexerciseofrightoffreedomofconscienceisentitledto
carryanopinionandexpressanopinion thathedoesnotfollowany
religion or anyreligioustenet. He hasrightto saythat he doesnot
believeinanyreligion.Therefore,ifheiscalleduponbyanyagencyor

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

pil-139.10

instrumentalityoftheStatetodisclosehisreligion,hecanalwaysstate

rt

that hedoesnotpractice anyreligion or he does not belongtoany

C
ou

religion. He cannot to be compelled to state that he professes a

particularreligion.

10.TheprayermadeinthisPetitionistodirecttheRespondents

ig
h

torecognizeNoReligionasaformofreligion.Whenanindividual
says that he does not practice or profess any religion, he does not
belongtoanyreligion or any religioussect. Theotherpart of the

PrayerClause(A)seeksawritofmandamusdirectingtheRespondents
nottoinsistonwriting/mentioning/specifying/quotingreligioninany

ba
y

ofitsformsordeclarationswhicharetobefilledinbyacitizen. No
individual can be compelled to state that he belongs to a particular

om

religion,thoughhedoesnotpracticeorprofessthesaidreligion.He
hasafundamentalrighttostatethathedoesnotprofessorpracticeany
religionand,therefore,whatfollowsisthesecondpartofthePrayer
Clause(A)whichwillhavetobegranted.Therefore,theGovernment
PrintingPresscannotdenyrequestofacitizentodeclareinthegazette
thathedoesnotbelongtoanyreligion.

11.

Therefore, the Petition must succeed and we pass the

followingorder:

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

ash

10

pil-139.10

ORDER:
We issue a writ of mandamus directing the

rt

(a)

C
ou

Respondentsnottocompelanyindividualtodeclare
or specify his religion in any form or any
declaration;

We declare that by virtue of Article 25 of the

ig
h

(b)

ConstitutionofIndia,everyindividualhasrightto
claimthathedoesnotbelongtoanyreligionand

thathedoesnotpracticeorprofessanyreligion;

om

ba
y

(c)

(d)

Theorderofthe GovernmentPrintingPressisset
asidetothatextent;

ThePetitionisallowedonaboveterms.

(A.S.CHANDURKAR,J)

(A.S.OKA,J)

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::

11

pil-139.10

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

ash

::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2014 20:40:37 :::