Introduction:

In a significant affirmation of religious liberty, the Madras High Court recently permitted the construction of a Bible Study Centre by Jacob Sahariah, the District Secretary of the CSI Church Erichamamoottu Villai, located in Kanyakumari District. The bench, comprising Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice N Senthil Kumar, emphasized that rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution cannot be curtailed based on mere apprehensions of law and order disturbances. The court stated, “As enshrined by the Constitution of India under Articles 25 and 26, such a right cannot be denied or taken away on a mere objection or apprehension of law and order, and there cannot be any impediment for the Government Officials, namely, the respondents 1 and 2, to deny the permission sought by the Writ Petitioner.”

Petitioner’s Contentions:

Jacob Sahariah, representing the CSI Church Erichamamoottu Villai, filed a petition challenging the rejection of his application to construct a Sunday Bible School. He argued that his application, submitted by Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997, was unjustly denied by the District Collector. The rejection was based on reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, citing potential law and order issues. Sahariah contended that these reports were not furnished to him, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He invoked Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the freedom to practice and propagate one’s religion and manage religious affairs. He emphasized that the proposed Study Centre was to be constructed on his private land, and thus, the denial of permission infringed upon his constitutional rights.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondents, argued that the RDO’s report highlighted objections from individuals of different faiths in the vicinity. It was contended that granting permission for the construction could potentially disrupt peace and tranquillity in the area, leading to societal unrest. The respondents emphasized the necessity of considering ground realities to maintain law and order. They further argued that the apprehensions were based on credible inputs and that the administration must prevent any possible communal tensions.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the submissions, the court observed that the rights enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 are fundamental and cannot be negated based on mere apprehensions. The bench noted that there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the construction of the Bible Study Centre would lead to a law and order situation. The court emphasized that in the absence of any alarming situation, permission cannot be denied solely on objections or apprehensions. The bench also took into account that the proposed building was to be constructed on private land, with the petitioner having clear title and possession. The court found no valid reason for refusing the grant of permission. Furthermore, the petitioner assured the court of his willingness to provide an undertaking that no electronic display boards or loudspeakers would be installed outside the proposed building after its construction. Accepting this assurance, the court directed the petitioner to submit a notarized undertaking to the District Collector. The court allowed the plea, setting aside the District Collector’s order, but clarified that other technical requirements as per relevant rules must be satisfied.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional freedoms, particularly the right to practice and propagate one’s religion. By permitting the construction of the Bible Study Centre, the Madras High Court reinforced that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed based on unfounded apprehensions. The decision serves as a reminder that constitutional guarantees must be protected to maintain the secular fabric of the nation.