[Reproduced below, at sl. no. I, is the operative part of the path breaking
Bombay High Court judgement.
(One only hopes that, as in case of the Sec. 377, the SC does not intervene
to turn back the clock.)
The complete text of the judgement is available at: <
http://www.sacw.net/article9624.html>.
Following that, at sl.no. II, is a news item reporting on the issue.]
I/II.
Apart from the freedom of conscience, there is a fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression. Articles 19 and 25 confer a freedom of
conscience on a citizen which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. As far as the freedom of speech and expression is
concerned, it guarantees the freedom to an individual from compulsion as to
what he shall think and what he shall say. India is a secular democratic
republic. The State has no religion. There is a complete freedom for every
individual to decide whether he wants to adopt or profess any religion or
not. He may not believe in any religion. If he is professing a particular
religion, he can give up the religion and claim that he does not belong to
any religion.
There is no law which compels a citizen or any individual to have a
religion. The freedom of conscience conferred by the Constitution includes
a right not to profess, practice or propagate any religion. The right of
freedom of conscience conferred on a citizen includes a right to openly say
that he does not believe in any religion and, therefore, he does not want
to practice, profess or propagate any religion. If the parents of a citizen
practice any particular religion, he has a freedom of conscience to say
that he will not practice any religion. There is a freedom to act as per
his conscience in such matters.
8. Freedom of conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution encompasses
in itself a freedom to an individual to take a view that he does not belong
to any religion. The freedom conferred by Article 25 of the Constitution
also includes a right of an individual to claim that he is an 'Atheist'. As
the freedom of conscience confers a fundamental right to entertain a
religious belief, it also confers a right on an individual to express an
opinion that he does not belong to any religion.
9. No authority which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India or any of its agency or instrumentality can infringe
the fundamental right to freedom of conscience. Any individual in exercise
of right of freedom of conscience is entitled to carry an opinion and
express an opinion that he does not follow any religion or any religious
tenet. He has right to say that he does not believe in any religion.
Therefore, if he is called upon by any agency or instrumentality of the
State to disclose his religion, he can always state that he does not
practice any religion or he does not belong to any religion. He cannot to
be compelled to state that he professes a particular religion.
....
11. Therefore, the Petition must succeed and we pass the following order:
ORDER :
(a) We issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to compel
any individual to declare or specify his religion in any form or any
declaration;
(b) We declare that by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of
India, every individual has right to claim that he does not belong to any
religion and that he does not practice or profess any religion;
(c) The order of the Government Printing Press is set aside to that
extent;
(d) The Petition is allowed on above terms.
[Source: <http://www.sacw.net/article9624.html>.]
II.
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-legal-fraternity-hails-bombay-high-court-order-to-keep-religion-out-of-forms-2021316
Legal fraternity hails Bombay High Court order to keep religion out of forms
Thursday, 25 September 2014 - 5:45am IST | Agency: DNA
Mustafa Plumber <http://www.dnaindia.com/authors/mustafa-plumber>
Legal experts have welcomed the Bombay High Court
<http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/bombay-high-court> judgment directing the
state not to compel any individual to specify his religion in any form or
declaration made to the government. The legal fraternity feels the ruling
carries forward the underlying spirit of the Constitution of India
<http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/constitution-of-india> which provides equal
rights to all citizens.
Asim Sarode, advocate and human rights
<http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/human-rights> activist, hailed the decision
as very progressive. "The values of our democracy should be considered in a
more dynamic interpretation. This judgment takes that thought ahead.
However, we are still struggling as a society while professing or
practising a religion."
Saroda said Article 25 of the Constitution of India
<http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/india>, is being misconstrued by fanatics.
"Caste and religion are being mentioned because of reservation for certain
categories. Reservation on the basis of religion and class should be
changed. This judgment is a step forward to bring secularism in real
practice."
The HC order came on a public interest litigation
<http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/public-interest-litigation> filed by three
members of an organisation - Full Gospel Church of God. The members had
sought for issuance of a gazette recording that they are not Christians but
they belong to "No Religion". The petitioners had informed the court that
the state should be told not to insist on religion in any of its forms or
declarations.
Former IPS officer-turned advocate Y P Singh said, "There are a lot of
rational thinkers, who feel religion is a superstition. I don't believe in
religion so why should I be forced to write the religion in state
documents/declarations. This order is in consonance with the tenets of
freedom enshrined in our Constitution, and it should have come a long time
ago."
Singh said India is a secular country and religion should be voluntary.
"Its need should be only for statistical purpose, religion has to be an
absolutely confidential thing for every individual."
In its order on Tuesday, the HC had said, "Freedom of conscience under
Article 25 of the Constitution encompasses in itself a freedom to an
individual to take a view that he does not belong to any religion. The
freedom conferred also includes a right of an individual to claim that he
is an 'Atheist'."
*When HC came to the rescue of atheist teacher*
Last year, the HC had granted a major relief to Sanjay Salve, an atheist
teacher from Nashik, by directing the management of the school, where he
was employed since 1996, to release his dues held back since 2008. Salve
was harassed as he would not fold his hands during the daily school prayer
meet.
The court had noted that it was not mandatory for Salve to fold his hands
during the prayer meet. He had moved the HC, citing Article 28 (3) of the
Constitution, which gives right to any person attending educational
institutes receiving state funds to not participate in religious
instructions.
--
Peace Is Doable
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
