Introduction:

In a culturally significant and constitutionally nuanced ruling, the Karnataka High Court adjudicated a dispute involving Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust (Petitioner) and the State of Karnataka & Bruhat Bengaluru Authorities (Respondents) regarding the denial of permission to use a public auditorium for celebrating Sri Shankaracharya Jayanti. The controversy arose when the petitioner sought permission to utilize the Yoga Auditorium at Sankey Park, Bengaluru, for conducting the said event on April 21, but the request was declined by the Senior Assistant Horticulture Director of the West City Corporation.

The refusal was premised on the assertion that the auditorium could not be used for “dharmic activities” and was restricted to yoga-related programs. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that such a restriction was arbitrary, unsupported by any statutory provision, and violative of constitutional principles.

The matter was heard by Justice M.I. Arun, who was called upon to examine not only the legality of the administrative decision but also the broader question of whether dharmic and cultural activities can be excluded from public spaces in a secular republic like India.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner Trust mounted a robust challenge against the refusal, emphasizing both legal and constitutional grounds.

At the outset, the petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked any statutory backing. It was contended that no rule, regulation, or government policy had been placed on record by the authorities to demonstrate that dharmic activities were prohibited in the auditorium. In the absence of such a legal framework, the denial of permission was arbitrary and unsustainable.

The petitioner further submitted that the auditorium had been used in the past for various programs conducted by private entities, many of which were not strictly related to yoga. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrated that the restriction cited by the authorities was not consistently applied and was therefore discriminatory.

On the nature of the event, the petitioner emphasized that Sri Shankaracharya Jayanti is not merely a religious celebration but also a cultural and philosophical commemoration. Adi Shankaracharya, as a proponent of Advaita philosophy, holds a revered place in Indian intellectual and spiritual traditions. Celebrating such a figure, the petitioner argued, contributes to the preservation and promotion of India’s rich cultural heritage.

The petitioner also invoked constitutional principles, asserting that India’s secularism does not imply the exclusion of religion from public life but rather ensures equal respect for all faiths and cultural expressions. Denying permission for a dharmic event in a public auditorium, without any legal basis, was argued to be contrary to this inclusive understanding of secularism.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, representing the municipal and state authorities, sought to justify their decision on administrative grounds.

It was contended that the Yoga Auditorium at Sankey Park was primarily intended for yoga-related activities, and as a matter of policy, it was not generally allotted for religious or political events. The authorities argued that this restriction was necessary to maintain the intended purpose and character of the facility.

The respondents maintained that allowing dharmic events could potentially open the door to a wide range of religious and political activities, thereby complicating the management and neutrality of the public space.

However, the respondents were unable to produce any specific नियम, regulation, or statutory provision that explicitly prohibited the use of the auditorium for dharmic activities. Their argument largely rested on administrative practice rather than enforceable law.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully evaluating the submissions and the legal framework, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s request.

1. Absence of Legal Prohibition

The Court found that the respondents had failed to establish any legal basis for the restriction imposed on the use of the auditorium.

Justice Arun observed that administrative decisions must be grounded in law, and in the absence of any statutory prohibition, the denial of permission could not be sustained.

The Court succinctly stated the principle:

“What is not prohibited is permitted.”

This principle formed the cornerstone of the judgment, reinforcing the idea that public authorities cannot impose restrictions based on unwritten or arbitrary considerations.

2. Secularism and Cultural Expression

A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of secularism in the Indian context.

The Court rejected the notion that secularism requires the exclusion of dharmic or religious activities from public spaces. Instead, it emphasized that India’s secularism is inclusive and recognizes the importance of cultural and spiritual traditions.

The Court observed that:

• Indian civilization is deeply intertwined with dharmic and cultural activities,
• These activities form an integral part of the nation’s identity,
• Excluding them would amount to undermining the very essence of Indian culture.

The Court also referred to elements within the Constitution itself that reflect India’s cultural heritage, including references to the Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, and other philosophical traditions.

3. Recognition of Shankaracharya’s Legacy

The Court acknowledged the significance of Adi Shankaracharya as one of India’s most revered philosophers.

It held that celebrating his Jayanti is not merely a religious act but also a cultural and intellectual event, deserving of recognition and accommodation.

4. Arbitrary Exercise of Power

The Court found that the respondents’ decision amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power, as it was not supported by any नियम or consistent practice.

The selective denial of permission, despite allowing other non-yoga activities in the auditorium, further reinforced the finding of arbitrariness.

5. No Absolute Right, but Fair Consideration

While granting relief to the petitioner, the Court clarified that the Trust does not have a vested right to claim the auditorium as a matter of entitlement.

However, it held that the authorities are obligated to consider the petitioner’s request fairly and in accordance with law, without imposing arbitrary restrictions.

6. Directions Issued

The Court set aside the impugned endorsement and directed the respondents to:

• Reconsider the petitioner’s application,
• Do so in accordance with law and applicable criteria,
• Decide the matter within a period of five days.