# S.P. MITTAL ETC. ETC v. UNION. OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1983] 1 S.C.R. 729
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1982-11-08
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 5879 of 1980
- **Bench:** Y.V. Chandrachud, p N. BHAGWATI, 0. Chinnappa Reddy, V. Balakrishna Eradi, R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-and-others-8592
- **Pages:** 93

## Headnote

Right to freedom of religion and to manage religious affairs-Constitution
of India, 1950 Articles 25 and 26-Shri Aurobindo's rtachings cannot ht said to
be of a religious nature-Aurobindo Society and the Auroville township do not fall
within the meaning of religious denomination so as to be violative of Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution.
.
.
Words & Phrases-' Religion' and 'Religious denomination' explained.
(
Aurovill• (Emergeucy Provisions) Act, 1980 (Act L1X of 1980) p,.ambl11Par/iamentary competency to enact the Act--.Wh~ther inconsistent and in conflict
with the provisions of the West.Belfga/ Societies Registration Act, 1961 (Act XXVI
of 1961) Sections 22 & 23 containing in built self-contained proviSions for dealing
with the management of the rtgistered societies-Constitution of India 1950 Article
245, Schedule Vil, List I Entry 32-Functions of the Lists, Explained.
Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act. 1980 providing for taking over the
management only of Aurovi/le toWnship and its activities for a limitid period is not
violative either of Article 14, Articles 25 and 26 or Articles 29 and 30 ofthtt
ConstiJution .
. Sri Aurobindo, one of the Indian sages and philosphers, after a brilliant
academic and administrative career engaged himself for sometime in political
aciivities and revolutionary literary efforts, but later on gave them uo to concentrate himself with the life of medition and integral yoga at Pondicberry, in
Tamil Nadu. Madam M. Alfassa a French Lady, wb~ came to be known as
the Mother became a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. Very· soon more and
~o.re .
· dis~iples came to join him from various parts of India·- and abr~ad and tlius
the Aurobindo Ashram came into being.
The. disciples and devoted followersof Sri Aurobindo and the Mothe"r, with a view to propagate and practise the
ideals and beliCfs of Sri Aurobindo formed a Society called Sri Aurobindo
Society in the year 1960, ~hich at all material times w·as 'and is still a society
duly registered under the provisions of tb.e West Bea~al Societies Re~istratioq
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
[)
E
F
G
H
730
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[!983] I S.C.R.
Act, 1961. This Society is completely distinct from Aurobindo Ashram in
Pondicberry. The Society was established and registered for the purpose of
carrying out in and out side India the several objects stated· in the memoran<lum
of the Society.
'
The management of the Society vested in its Executive Committe~.
Rulerand regulations have been duly framed for the management. of the Society
and also for·safe cu~tody and protection of its assets, properties and funds.
Sri Aurobindo Society preaches arid propagates the ideals and teachings
of Sri Aurobind
10, inter alia, through its numerous centres scattered throughout
India by way of weekly meetings of its me~bers.
The Mother as the founder-president also coi;iceived of a project of
setting up a cultural township known as 'Auroville' where people of different
countries are expected to engage in cultural, educational and scientific and o1her
pursuits aiming at human unity. The Society has been a channel of funds for
setting up the cultural township known as Auroville.
At the initiative of the Government of India, .the United. Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation being of the opinion that the
Auroville project would
contribut~ to international understanding and
. promotion of peace sponsored the project by proposing a resolution to this effect
at its General Conference in 1966.
This resolution was unanimously ador•ted
Rt this conference.' By a fllrther resoIUtion passed in 1968 the UNESCO invited
its member States and intern"ational non-governmen_tal organisations to p3.rticipate in the development of Aur.oville as an international cultural township to
bring together the values of different cultures and civilisations in harmonious
environment with integrated living standards, which corresponds to man's
physical and spiritual needs. In 1970 UNESCO had directed its Dir

## Text

_Characters 0–39,961 of 218,541. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39961 for what follows._

ii.
>,
129
A
S.P. MITTAL ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION. OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. November 8, 1982
.
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.,.p N. BHAGWATI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY,
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ;)
Right to freedom of religion and to manage religious affairs-Constitution
of India, 1950 Articles 25 and 26-Shri Aurobindo's rtachings cannot ht said to
be of a religious nature-Aurobindo Society and the Auroville township do not fall
within the meaning of religious denomination so as to be violative of Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution.
.
.
Words & Phrases-' Religion' and 'Religious denomination' explained.
(
Aurovill• (Emergeucy Provisions) Act, 1980 (Act L1X of 1980) p,.ambl11Par/iamentary competency to enact the Act--.Wh~ther inconsistent and in conflict
with the provisions of the West.Belfga/ Societies Registration Act, 1961 (Act XXVI
of 1961) Sections 22 & 23 containing in built self-contained proviSions for dealing
with the management of the rtgistered societies-Constitution of India 1950 Article
245, Schedule Vil, List I Entry 32-Functions of the Lists, Explained.
Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act. 1980 providing for taking over the
management only of Aurovi/le toWnship and its activities for a limitid period is not
violative either of Article 14, Articles 25 and 26 or Articles 29 and 30 ofthtt
ConstiJution .
. Sri Aurobindo, one of the Indian sages and philosphers, after a brilliant
academic and administrative career engaged himself for sometime in political
aciivities and revolutionary literary efforts, but later on gave them uo to concentrate himself with the life of medition and integral yoga at Pondicberry, in
Tamil Nadu. Madam M. Alfassa a French Lady, wb~ came to be known as
the Mother became a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. Very· soon more and
~o.re .
· dis~iples came to join him from various parts of India·- and abr~ad and tlius
the Aurobindo Ashram came into being.
The. disciples and devoted followersof Sri Aurobindo and the Mothe"r, with a view to propagate and practise the
ideals and beliCfs of Sri Aurobindo formed a Society called Sri Aurobindo
Society in the year 1960, ~hich at all material times w·as 'and is still a society
duly registered under the provisions of tb.e West Bea~al Societies Re~istratioq
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
[)
E
F
G
H
730
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[!983] I S.C.R.
Act, 1961. This Society is completely distinct from Aurobindo Ashram in
Pondicberry. The Society was established and registered for the purpose of
carrying out in and out side India the several objects stated· in the memoran<lum
of the Society.
'
The management of the Society vested in its Executive Committe~.
Rulerand regulations have been duly framed for the management. of the Society
and also for·safe cu~tody and protection of its assets, properties and funds.
Sri Aurobindo Society preaches arid propagates the ideals and teachings
of Sri Aurobind
10, inter alia, through its numerous centres scattered throughout
India by way of weekly meetings of its me~bers.
The Mother as the founder-president also coi;iceived of a project of
setting up a cultural township known as 'Auroville' where people of different
countries are expected to engage in cultural, educational and scientific and o1her
pursuits aiming at human unity. The Society has been a channel of funds for
setting up the cultural township known as Auroville.
At the initiative of the Government of India, .the United. Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation being of the opinion that the
Auroville project would
contribut~ to international understanding and
. promotion of peace sponsored the project by proposing a resolution to this effect
at its General Conference in 1966.
This resolution was unanimously ador•ted
Rt this conference.' By a fllrther resoIUtion passed in 1968 the UNESCO invited
its member States and intern"ational non-governmen_tal organisations to p3.rticipate in the development of Aur.oville as an international cultural township to
bring together the values of different cultures and civilisations in harmonious
environment with integrated living standards, which corresponds to man's
physical and spiritual needs. In 1970 UNESCO had directed its Director·Genera1
to take such steps as may be feasible, wilhin the budgetary provisions to promote
the development of Auroville as an important· international cultural program1ne.
Sri Aurobindo Society received l~rge funds in the shape of grants from diffetent
organist:tions in India atJd abroad for development or that towDsbip. The
assistance included contributions from the State Go~·ernments of the valuf1 of
Rs. 66.50 lakhs and the Central Government of the value of Rs. 26.14 lakhs.
After the death of the Mother on 17th of November, 1973 a number of
problems of varying nature affecting the smooth running of the project" cropped·
· ~P· The Government of India on receiving complaints about mismanagement
of the project and misuse of funds by Sri Aurobindo Society set up a cornmiltee
under the chainnanship of the Governor of Pondicherry with representatives of
the Government of Tamil Nadu anli of the Ministry of Home Affairs in ·the
'Central Government to look into the matter. The Committee made a detailed
scrutiny of the accounts of Sri Aurobindo Society relating to Aurovilte and
found instances of serious irregularities in the management of the Society,
misutilisation of its funds and their diversion to other purposes. Further, xarious
other serious difficulties had arisen plaguing the Management of Auroville
~μd rcnderin~ thereby any_ .furth~r _growth of the township almost ir:ppossible.
' .
•
..
.,
"'"·
•
·•
,.,
'
S.P. MITIAL V. UNION
731
' In the circumstances the taking over of the management of Auroville became
imperative to ensure growth of tbe township in tu~e with its objectives.
Keeping in view the international character of the project and considering
the government's involvement in
actively sponsoring
the project through
UNESCO, the. growth and management of the project had become the primary
responsibility of the ·oovernment of Illdia. The ideals: of the project.f9rmed
India's highest aspirations, which could not be allowed to be defeated or
frustrated. Sri Aurobindo society had lost complete control over the situatiOn
and the members of the l\uroville approaCbed the Government of India to give
prOtection against oppression and victimisatioil at the hands of the said Soci~ty.
There were internal quarrels between the various factions of Sri Aurobirido
Society. There have also been instances of law· and ordet situation. Financial
management of the projects has not been sound and several instances of mismanauement, diversion of funds have been revealed.
A large sum of monCy
was given by Sri Aurobindo Society to AURO construction-an agency whoso·
'status is not at all defined, whose functions and capabilities for taking up
large construction works alsO had not .been made known. The Government
in the circum~tances could not be a silent spectator to the mismanagement of
t~c project and internecine quilrrels amongst its meaibers, which if not checked
could Iea:d to the destruction of the project so nobly conceived. The Government, therefore, <;tecided to issue a Presidential Ordinance, After the -filing of
the writ, ·petition the ordinance ·has now been replaced by' the AuroVille
(Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.
'
The constitutional validity of. the Act has "been cha11enged on four
grounds : (i) Parliament has. no legislative competence to enact the impugned
A
. IB
G
D
statute; (ii) The impugned Act infringes
Articles 25~ 26, 29 and -30 of the
E
Constitution; (iii) The impugned Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitu~
tion; and (iv) The Act was ma/a fide.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD:
(Per Misr_a, J.)
1:1. The Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the Auroville
(Emergency Provisiofl') Act, 1980 (Act LIX) of 1980. [770 DJ
1 :2. The subject. matter of the impugned Act is not covered by Entry
32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Even if the subject matter of the impugned
ACt is not covered by any specific entry of List I or III of the Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution it would in any case be covered by the resi~uary entry 97 ·
of List I. [770 C-D]
1:3. The function of the Lists in. the Seventh Sc~edule to the Constitution
is not to confer powers. They merely demarcate the legislative fields.
Tho
Entries in the three Lists are only legislative l\~a<!s or fields of le~islation a~d th~
F
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983) l S.C.ll,
A
power to l~gislate is given to appropriate legislature by Articles 245 to 248 of f~e
Constitution. [766 H, 767 A]
Bc
E
F
G
1 :4. The Auroville Act even incidentaly does not trench upon flle
field covered by the West Bengal Societies Registration At:t, 1961 as it is in no
way related to Constitution, regulation and winding up of the Society .. [770 BJ
R.C. Cooptr v. Union of India [1970] 3 SCR 530@ 563, applied.
Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for the Dominion [1895]
AC 348 @ 366-67; Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon [1972] 2 SCR 33 @ 45;
Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College v. The State of Delhi at.id
Others [1962] 1 Suf)p. SCR 156; Katra Education Society v. State of Uttfu
a ..
Pradesh and Others [1966] 3 SCR 328, referred to.
2:1. The words "religious denomination" in· Article 26 of the Constit:J.-
tion must take thefr colour from tbe word 'religion' and if this be so, the
expression "religious denomination:• mμst also satisfy three conditions:
(i) It must be a collection of individuals who has a system of beliefs
or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their spiritual weHbeing, that is, a common faith;
•
(ii) Common organ~.sation: and
(iii) Designation by a distinctive name. [774 B-D]
2:2. The term 'religion• has been judicialJ.;i....considered in the Commission 1 ~r
of Hindu Religious Endownments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiyor
of Sri Shriur Mult [1954) SCR 1005 and the following propositions of law laid
down therein haVe been consistently followed in later cases including TJ1t
Durgah .Committee, Ajmer and Another v. Syed Hussain Ali & Others [1962] I SCR
383@410-11 :
(1) Religion means "a system of beliefs or do.:trines which are reSar ..
ded
bY. those who profess that religion as conducive to their
spiritual well being";
(2) A <tligion iS not merely an op1n1on, doctrine or belief. It has
its outward expression in acts as welt;
(3) Religion need not be theistic;
(4) "Religious denominationu means a religious sect or body having
a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive
name;
~5) A law which takCs away the rights of administration from the
~~~i:ids 9f !!- reli~io~s denomin~ti9n altoeethcr and vests in anothe.:
~
:'
.} --
•
'
. ,
_,
. ..,
S.P. MITTAL v. UNION
733
authority Would amount to violation of the right guar<iriteed-under ·
A
clause (d) of Article 26." (773 E·H, 774A]
Per Majority
[Misra, J
for
himself.
P. N. "hagwati and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.
dissenting.]
Y. V. Chandrachud,
C.J.,
and Chinnappa Reddy, J.
2:3. On the basis _of the materials the Memorandum of Association of
the Society. the several applications made by the Society claiming exemption
under s. 35 and s. 80 of the Income-tax Act, _the repeated ut~rings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother that the society and Auroville were not religious institutions and host of other documents there is no,room for doubt that neither the
Society nor Auroville constitute a religious denomination and the teachings of
Sri Aurobindo only represented his philosophy and not a religion. [793 D-E]
Numerous Utterings by Sri Aurobindo or .the Mother .unmistakably show
that the Ashram or Societ'y or Auroville is not a religious inst.itution. There
can be no better proof than what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother themselves
thought of their teachings and their institutions to find out· whether the teachings
of Sri Aurobindo and his Integral Yoga constitute a religion of a philosophy .
The Utterings made from time to time by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother hardly
leave any doubt about the nature of the Institution. It was on the basis that it
was not a religious institution, that the Society collected funds from the Central
Government, the Governments _of Sta~es, other non-Governmental agencies.
and from abroad. (792 B·D, 793 A]
Even assuming but not holding that the Society or the Auroville were a
religious denomination, the in1pugned enactment is not hit t·y Articles 25 and'26
of the Constitution. The impugned enactmeilt does not curtail the freedom of
conscience and the "right freely to profess, practise and prop8gate religio.n .
Therefore, there is no question Of the enactment being hit by Article 25. [793 E-F]
2:4. The impugned enactment does not stand in the way of the Society
establishing and maintaining institutions for religious and charitable purposes,
It also does not stand in the way of the Society io ·manage its affairs in matters
of religion. [794- A-Bl
2:5. Even assuming that the society or Auroville was a religious denomi ..
nation, clauSe {b) of Art. 26 guarantees to a religious denomination a right to
manage its oWn affairs in matters of religion. Besides t~he right to manage its
own aff~irs in matters of religion, which ·is given by clause (b), the next two
clauses of Art. 26 guarantee to a .religious denomination the right to acquire and
own property and to administer suCh property in accordance with law. The
administration of its property by a religious· denomination haS thus been placed
on a different footing from the right to ·manage its own affairs in the .matt~Ts of
religion. The latter is_,@ fundamental right which no legislature can take away,
wbeiyas the former can be regulated ~Y laws which the legislature can take away,
B
D
E
G
H
734
SUPREME COOllt RBPOllTS
[1983) I S.C.F·'"
A
whereas the former can be regulated by laws which the legislature can validily
impose. Jt i:s clear, therefore, that question merely relating to a religions group
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
or institution are not matters of religion to which clause o.f article applies.
~ '-
(800 H, 801 A·B)
2:6. The impugned Act had not taken away the right of management in
matters of religion or a religious denomination. if the Society or Auroville is a
religious denomination at all, rather it has taken away the right of management
of the property of Auroville. Thus the impugned Act neither violates Article 25,
nor Article 26 of the Constitution. [801 C·Dl
The Commissioner of . H. R. & C. E. Madras v. Lakshmlndra Tirtha
Swamljar of Sri Slrur Mutt [1954] S.C.R. 1005; Th• Durgah Committ .. Ajmer and
Another v. Syed Hussain Ali [1962] 1 S.C.R, 383; Tilkyat Shri Govlnd/alji Maharaj
v. Stale of Ra}a~than & Oth•rs [1964) 1 S.C.R. 561; Sastri Yagnapurushadrl &
Others v. Muldas Bhudardas Vysya & Another [1966] 3 S.C.R. 242; Divyadassan
Rajendra Ramdassjl &_ Another v. Stal• of Andhra Pradesh [1970] 1 S.C.R. 103;
Na/aw RaN1alingayya v. The Commi81ioner of Charitable and Hindu &/igious
· Institutions and Endownments Hyderabad A.I,R. 1971 (AP) 320; T. Krlthnan v.
G.D.M. Committee A.I.R, 1978 Kerala 681 applied.
3. On an analysis of Articles 29 and 30 and the decided cases it is
eviderit that the Auroville Act does not seek to curtail the right of any section
of citizen to conserve its own language, script or culture conferred by Article 29.
The benefit of Art. 30(1) can be claimed by the community only on proving
that it is a religious or linguistic minority and that the institution was established
by It. Since Auroville or the Societ;v. is not a religious denomination, Articles 29
and 30 would not be attached and, therefore, the impugned Act cannot be held
to be violative of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. (805 A·C]
In re : The Kera/a Education Bill [1959] SCR 9951 Reverend Sltl~aibhal
Serbhai and Others v. State of Bombay and Another. [1963] 3 SCR 837 @ 856;
Stat< of Kuala v. Mother Provincial [1971] 1 SCR 734; applied.
4. The Auroville Take over Act cannot be said to be violative of Article
J4 of the Constitution, which action was taken after full consideration of various
aspects of the problem, for the reasons namely~ (i) it has not been pointed out
which were 1he other institutions where similar situations were prevailing; and
(ii) there is a uniqueness with this institution inasmuch as the Government is
also involved. Even a s.ingle institution may be taken as a class. The situation
prevailing in the Auroville had converted the dream of the Mother into a night·
mare. There had arisen acute law and .order situation in the Auroville,
numerous cases were pending against various foreigners, the funds meant for
the Auroville had been diverted towards other purposes and the ·atmosphere was
getting out of hand. In the circumstances the Government intervened and promul.
gated the'Ordinance and later on substituted it by the impugned enactment.
(814 B-DJ
•
•
S.P. MITTAL v. UNiON
735
Budhan Choudhary v: The State of Bihar [1955] I SCR "1045: Shri "
Rama~rishna Daf!nia v. Sri iust!ce S.~ Tandolka;. and Others [1959] SCR 279;
Raja B/rakishore v" The Sate ofOrlssa [1964] 7 SCR 32, followed.
Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and Another v. Stale of Bihar and Others [1953]
SCR 1129; distioguished.
5:1. Whether the remedies provided under the Societies Registration Act
\.11'.Cre sufficient to meet the exigencies of the situation is not for ihe Court to
deC:ide' but it is for the Government and if the Government thought that the conditions prevailing in the AurovHle and the Society can be amelJora!ed not by
resorting to the provisiOns of the SocietieS Registration Act but by· a special
en"actnlerit, that is an area of the GOvemoie.nt and not .of the Court. [818 E-F]
'
. .
.
5:2 .. It is not correct to say that the facts stated in the preamble of the
Act were non est. Obviou'Sly there were serious irregularities in the m.anagement
of the said society: There has beon misutilisation of Junds and iheir ·diversion t?
other purposes. This is evident from the audit report. There was no ·material
change in the situation -on the date of the impugned ordinance or the Act,
rathCr the situation had grown fronl bad. to worse and. the-· Sordid situation
pfevailing. in the Auroville so
poini'Cd Out by . the pafties fully justified
the 'promutgation of the
ordinance~ and the passing ·Of the ·enactment.
Of course, each party tried to apportion the blame on the other. Who so ever
be· responsible, the fact remains that the prevailing sittiation -in the Auroville was
far from satisfactory. The amount donated for the COnstfuction of the cultural
township Aufovil1e and other institutions was to the tune of. Rs. 3 crores. It
was the responsibility of the Government to see that the amount was not mis·
utilised and the management was _properly carried out. On a perusal of the
audit report, which is a voluminous one, all that can be said is 1hat on th~ facts
found by the audit committee, the repor1 is rather a mild one. There seems to
·be serious irregularities in the accounts. A substantial amount received by way.
of donations had not been properly spent, there being mis·utilisation and
diversion of the funds. [819 B-FJ
'
5:3. Even assuming that the facts brought to the notice of the legisla·
ture were wrong, it will not be open to the Court to hold that Act to be bad on
. that account. _The Court would not do so even in case of a litigation which has
become final on the ground that the facts or the evidence produced in the case
were not correct. The Parliament had tO apply its mind on the facts before it.
[819 F-H]
We can normally assume th~t the 'Government would certainly appoint
a· re'Sponsible person as an administraior especially when there 'is a heavy stake
in which the 'oovemmenl of India is also involved in as much as at the instance
of the GoVernment the UNESCO gave financial support to the institution.
[820 F-0]
A.
B
c
D
E
F
G
6. The contention that the report of th!! ~ommittee was tainted as Shri
H
Kulkarni the Cbair'man and Secretary were parties, .is Without any foundation.
TliC allegation of the impugne Act being· malafide is £equally devoid Or force. ·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
· [ 1983 i i s.c.il.
Kiriti Joshi cannot be said to have bis own axe to grind in the matter or was
instrumental in getting tbe impugned Ordinance and the Act passed. Allegations
about mala fides are more easily made than made out. Merely because he made
a complaint ab.Jut tho situation prevailing in the management of Auroville
· and the Society, it cannot be said that the impugned enactment was passed at
his behest. [820 H, 821 B-C]
PerjChinnappa Reddy, J. (Dissenting)
1:1. Shri _Aurobindo )ruly ~was a religious teacher and taught and
was understood to have taught new religious doctrine and practice. Therefore,
Aurobindoism, can certainly be classified if not as a new religion, as a new
sect of Hinduism and the followers of Sri Aurobindo can be termed a religious
denomination.
Sri Aurobindo of course, disclaimed tbat be was founding
a religion. No great religious teacher ever claimed that be was founding a new
religion or a new school of religious thought. The question is not whether Sri
Aurobindo refused to claim or- denied that he was founding a new religion or ·a
new school of religious thought but ~whether his discipes and the community
thought so. There is no doubt that they did not only his disciples and followers,
but religious leaders all the world over and of all faiths. Therefore, Aurobindo
Society is a sect of a religious determination within the meaning of the expression
in Article 26 of the Constitution. [754 G-H, 755 A-B, F·G]
1:2. The word 'religion' does not occur in the Preamble to the
constitution, but the Preamble does ·promise to
secure
to
its citizens
"Liberty of thought, expression, beJief faith and worship". The freedom of conscience and the Right to profess, propagate and practise religion guaranteed ·in
Article 25 flow out of the idCa so expressed in Preamble. Freedom of conscience
is not to be separated frtm the Right to pi'ofess, pr8.ctise and propogate religion.
They go together and together they form part of the Right to Freedom of Religion. It is clear from Article 25 that secul~r activity may be associated with Religion. though the guarantee of the article does not extend to such activity, Article
26 guarantees that every reiigious denomination or any section thereof shall have
the right, subject to public order, mora1ity and health, to establish and maintain
institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own .affairs in
matters of religion, to own and acquire movable and immovable pr6perty and to
administer such property in accordance with law. Several provisions of the
constitution where the expression 'religion' and 'religious denomination' are used
are either those which are concerned with equality and equal opportu'nity or
th0se which are concerned with freedom -of religion.
[742 D, F, G-H, 743 A, CJ
1:3. Reading Art. 25 in the background of the proclamation regarding
Liberty in the Preamble to the constitution, it is clear that (I) the constitution
views religion as comprising thought, expression, belief, faith or worship, as
involving 1he consci'ence and as something which may be ptof~ssed, practised
and propagated and which is any man's attribute in the same manner as race,
sex, language, residence etc: (ii) 'economic, financial, political or other secular_
activity may be associated with religious practice though such activity is not
covered bY the gu_arantee of freedom of conscience and the right freely t~
"·
'
~·
S.P. MITTAL V. UNION
737
profess, practise arid propagate,.religion; and so Religion is a matter of thought,
expression; belief, faith and worship, a ·matter involving_ the conscience and a
matter which may be.professed, practised and propagated by anyone and which
may even have some secular activity associated with it. (7.44 F-H, 745 A]
'
1:4. Religion undefined by the constitution, is incapable of precise judicia
definition either: In the Oackground of the provisions of the constitution and the
ught shed by judicial precedent, it can at best be said that religion is a matter of
faith. It is a matter of belief ·and doctrine. · It concerns the conscience i.e.
the spirit of man. It must be capable of overt expressions in work and ~eed,
such as worship or ritual. So religion is a matter of belief arid doctrine concernii:ig the human spirit expressed overtly in the form of ritual and worship.
Some religions are easily identifiable as religious; ·some are easily identifiable
as not religious. There are many in the· penumbfal re8:ion which instinctively
appear to~some as religion ani::I to others as·not religions. There is no formula.
of general application. There is no knife-edge test. Primarily, it is a question
of the consciousness of the community, how does the fraternity, or sodality (if it
is permissible to use the Word without confining it to Roman Catholic Groups)
regard itself, how do others regard the fraternity or sodality. A host of other
circumstances may have to be considered; such as, the ·origin and the history of
the community. the rituals observed by the .community, what the founder, if any,
taught, what the founder was understood by his followers to have taught, etc.
In origin, the founder may not have intended to found any religion at· all. He
may have merely protested· against some rituals and observances, he may have
disagreed with the interpretation of
so~e earlier reli8ious tCnCts. . What he
said, what he preached and what he taught. his protest, his distent, his disagree--
meat might have developed "into a religion in the course of time, even during
his life-time. He may be again~t religion itself, Yet, history and the perception
of the community may make a religion out of what was not intended to be a
religion and he may be hailed as the founder of a new religion. (750 B~_G]
And, whatever the ordinary features of a religious denomination may be
considered to be, all are not of equal im-pOrtance and surely the common faith
.of the religious body is more important than the other fe;tures.
(751 CJ
.
The CommisSioire· of 1IR and C.E.,_ Madras v. Lakshmindra Tirtha
· Swamiyar of Sri Shirur Mutt .[1954] S .. C.R. 1005; Ratildl Panachand Gandhi v.
The State of Bombay [1954] S.C.R. 1055; Durgah Committee of A/mer v. Sayed
Hussain Ali & B'ors. [1962] 1 S.C.R. 383; Ti/kayat-Sh'ri Govind/alji Maharaj v. The
State of Raja"sthan and Others [t964J 1 S.C.R. 561; Raja Virakishore v. State of
Orissa [1964] 7 S.C.R. 32; Sasti Yagnapurushadji and Others v. Muldas Bhudardas
Yaisnya and Another [1966) 3 S.C.R. 242; referred to.
l:S. Judidial definitions are- not statutory definitions; they are mere
exp1anations, every word of which is not to .be weighed in golden scales. Law
bas a tendency to harden with the passage of time and judicial pronouncements
are made to assume the form of statutory pronouocemen_ts: So soon as a word
or expression occuring in the statute is judicially defined, the tendency is to rry to
interpret the language employed by the judges in the judicial definition. That is
wrong. Always words and expressions to be interpreted are those employed in
A
B
c
D
F
G
e
A
I B
c
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19831 1 s.c.a.
the statute and not those used by judges
definition is explanatory and not definitive.
for felicitous explanation, Judici.al
[751 C·B]
1:6. Religious denomination has not to .owe allegiance to any parent
religion. The entire foilowing of a religion may be no more than the religious
denomination. This may particularly be so in the case of small religious groups
or 'developing• religions, that is, religions in the formative stage. So Aura·
bindoism can be termed as a religious denomination. The world and India
treated and respected Shri Aurobindo as a religious teacher and the founder of
a new religion. [751 B-G]
2:1. Aui'oville (EmergenCy Provisions) Act. 1980 did not take away or
purport to take away the manag_ement of the Shri Aurobindo Society. ~ Parliament concerned itself with the management of Auroville only and with no other
activity. of the Shri Aurobindo Society, including 'it$ affairs in matters of
religion'. In fact, section 4(2) makes it explicit that, except for matters re18.ting
to the management of Aurovple, the provisions of the West Bengal Societies
Regisiration Act, 1961, under which the Society was registered, shall continue
to apply to the Society in the same manner as before. (755 G·H, 757 C-D]
2:2. The · n_ianagernent of the International, cultural
township of
AuI'oville cannot be said to be a matter of religion.
Auroville is a township,
and not a place of the worship. It is a toW11ship dedicated, not to tho practice
and the propagation of any religious doctrine but to promote international
utiderstanding and world peace, surely, a secular and not a religious activity.
The highest that can be sakl' in favour of AUroville being a religious institution
or its management being a religious matter, is that it was conceived by the
Mother and shaped and sculpted by Sbri Aurobindo's disciples and followers
in the pursuit of one of the ideas. and ideals of Sbri Aurobindo, a great religious
teacher. On tbe Other hand, the ideal itself, that is, the promotion of iDter~
national understanding and world peace is by no means a religious ideal and it
was because of the nature of the ideal that the Government of India an.d the
UNESCO adopted the project. Shri Aurobindo himself was not a mere religious
teacher~ He was a visionary, a humanist and·a nationalist ;who bad blossomed
into an internationalist. Theiefore; Auroville, 'thoUgh the child of the Mother'
and though nurtured by the devotees of Shri Aurobindo, ·_has an individuality,
distinctly secular of its own.
Hence, Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act
which p·rovides for the taking over the management of Aurovillc for a limited
period does not offend the rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 ~f the
Constitution. [757 B·B, 758 C]
2:3. The rights guaranteed by Articies 29 and 30 cannot be said to have
been infringed by the Auroville Emergency provisions Act. No section of citizens
having a culture and no religious minority has been denied the right to establish
and administer an educational institution of its choice. [758 DwE]
'
'
S.P. MITTAL •• UNION (Chinnappa k.eddy, J.)
739
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 5879 of 1980.
_A
. ,
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
AND
Writ Petition No. 587'7 of 1980.
/
(Under Ar_ticle 32 of the Constitution of India)
. AND
Transfered Cas¢ No. 29 of 1981.
(Calcutta High Court Writ Petition No. 11508 of 1981)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2819of1980.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgn'ient and order dated
21st November, 1980 of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta in F.M.A.T. No. 3408 of 1980)
So/i J. Sorabji, K.K. Venugopa/, S. Rangarajan, S. Bdlakrishnan,
M.K.D. Namboodiry, P. Radhakdshnan, N.A. Subrahmaniam, C.S.
Vaidyanathan, M.N. Krishna Mani and Vinnet. Ku111ar for the Petitioners and Appellant.
/ L.N. Sinha, Attorney General, K. Parasaran, Solicitor General,
M.K. Banerji, Additional Solicitor General, Govind Swaminadh'ln,
for R. 3, N. Nettar and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondents
Nos. 1 to 4.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and Raju Ramchandran for Respondent No. 5.
F.S. Nariinan, Anil B. Divan, P.H. Parekh, Mrs. Vineeta
Sengupta, Gautam Philip and Sanjeev · Agarwal for Respondent Nos. 6
to 240 in WPs. & CA.
P.P. Rao, P.C. Kapur and R. Venkataramani for interveners
1-88.
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G.
740
SUPREME COURT R~PORTS
FOR APPLICANT/INTERVENERS _
'
A.B. Patel.;
Indra Sen:
R.B! Datar
I
N.M. Kshatriya,
B.R.l Aggarwala,
I
(1983] I s.C.R
Catholic Bishop
ConP.A. 1Francis, J. 8. Dadachanji and
ference of India : ,
D.N. Mishra
'
The following Judgments were delivered
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. I have the 1, good fortune of having
before me the scholarly judgment of my', brother' Misra· J., I agree
with my brother Misra, J. that the Writ
~etitions must fail.
With
much· that he has said, also, I agree.
But ·,with a little, to my own
lasting regret, I do not agree. It is, therefore, proper for ine to
explain the points of my disagreement.
Quite a considerable part of the hearing of the petitions was
devoted to a debate on the question, what
1 is Religion ? Religion :
Everyone has
a religion, or at least,' a view or a window
on religion, be he a bigot or .simple believer, philosopher or pedestrian, atheist or agnostic.
Religion, like 'democracy' and 'equality'
is an elusive expression, which everyone uhderstands according to
his p~e-conceptions. What is religion to sbme is pure dogma to
others and what is religion to others is pure superstition to some
others. Karl Marx in .bis contribution to !he Critique of Hegel's
Philosophy of Law described religion as the '•Opium of the people'.
He said further "Basically religion is a very convenient sanctuary ~
for bourgeois thought to flee to in times of s1ress.
Bertrand Russell,
in his essay 'Why I am not Christian', saidl "Religion is based, I
think, primarily and mainly upon fear." It is partly the terror of the
unknown and partly, as I have said, the wishi to feel· that _you have a
kind of elder brother, who will stand by yoti in all your troubles·
and disputes.
Fear is the basis ·of the whole thing-fear of the
mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Eear is the parent of
cruelty, and, therefore, it is no wonder if' cruelty and religion
have gone .hand in hand.
As a worshipper at the alter of peace, I·
find it difficult to reconcile myself to religion, ,which throughout the
ages, bas justified war calling it a Dbarma Uddha, a Jehad or a
S.P. MITTAL v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
741
Crusade. I believe that by getting mixed up with religion, ethics has
lost 'much of its point, much of its purpose and a .major portion
of its spontaneity'. I apprehend I share the views of those who·
have neither faith nor belief in religion and who consider religion as
entirely unscientific and irrational. Chanting of prayer appears to me
· to be mere jingoism ·and observance of ritual, plain superstition.
But my views about religion. my prejudices and my predilections, if
they be such, are entirely irrelevant. So are - the views of the .
credulous, the fanatic, the bigot and the zealot. So also the views of
the faithful, the devout, the ·Acharya, the Moulvi, tile Padre and
the Bhikshu each of whom may claim his as the only true or revealed
religion. For our present purpose, we are concerned with what
the people of the Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic of India,
who have given each of its citizens Freedom of conscience and the'
right to freely profess, practise. and propogate religion and who
have given every religious denomination the right to freely manage
its religious affairs, mean by the expressions 'religion' and 'religious
. denomination'. We are concerned with what these expressions are
designed to mean in Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Any
Freedom or Right involving the conscience must naturally receive
a wide interpretation and the· expression 'religion' and -!religious
denomination' must therefore, be interpreted in no narrow, stifling
sense but is a liberal, expansive way.
Etymology is of no avail.
Religion is derived from 'religare'
which means "to bind''. Etymologically, therefore, every bond
betw,een two people is a religion, but that is not true. To say so
is only to indulge in etymological de'ception. ·Quite obviously'
, religion is· much more than a mere-bond uniting people.
Quite obviously, again, religion is not to be confined to the
tr~ditional, established, well-known
or popular
religions like
Hinduism, · Mahomedan_ism, Buddhism and
Christianity. There
may be and, indeed, there are, in this vast country, several religions,
less known or even unknown except in the remote corners or in the
small pockets of the land where they may be practised. A religio.n
may . not_ be ~wide-spread. It may have little following. It
may
not
have
even a _ .name, as
indeed . most tribal religions do not have. We inay only describe them by adding
the suffix
'ism'
to
the
name of the
founder-teacher, the
tribe, the area or the deity. The nomenclature is not of the essence.
Again, a band of persons, large or small, may not by said to be
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
D
E
F
G
742
SUPRPME COURT REPORTS
(1983) I S.C.R.
adherents of a religion merely because they share some common
beliefs and common interests and practise common rites and ceremoni~s; nor can pietistic recitation and solemn 1 ritual combine to
produce religion, on that account only. Secret societies dedicated
to secular tasks and indulging in queer oaths and observances,
guilds and groups of persons who meet but to dine and wine but
who subject their members to extravagant initiation cer.emonies,
village and tribal sorcerers and coven of witches who chant, rant
and dance in the most weird way possible are all far removed from
religion. They appear to lack the, 'spiritual connection'. But, all
this is unsatisfactory. We are not arriving at any definition of
religion. We are only making periphereal journeys and not getting
any nearer to the core of the problem presented to us.
·
Let us ·examine the relevant provisions of the Constitution for
such light as they may throw on the meaning of the expressions
'religion' and ·religious denominat.ion'. They are not defined.
The
word 'religion' does not occur in the Preamble to the Constitution,
but the Preamble ·does promise to secure to its citizens "Liberty of
thought, expression, belief, falth and worship". The Freedom of
conscience and the Right to profess, propagate and practice religion,
flow out of the idea so expressed in the Preamble,
In Part-III of
the Constitution, under the bead "Right to Freedom of Religion",
there are four Artiqles.
Art. 25(i) guarantees to all persons, sμbject
to public order,.morality and health and to the other provisions of
Part-III of the Constitution, freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Freedom of conscience is not to be separated from the Right to profess, practice
and propagate religion.
They go together and together they form
part of'the Right to Freedom of Religion.
Clause ( 1) of Art. 25,
however, stipulates that the freedom and the right guaranteed by
. cl. (I) shall not prevent the State from making any law regulating
or restricting, any economic, financial, political or other secular ·
activity which may be associated with religious practice. or to provide for social welfare and reform or to throw open ·Hindu religious
institutions o(a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
So, the Article makes it clear that secular activity may be associated
with Religion, though the guarantee o.f the article does not extend
to such activity,
Art. 26 guarantees that every religious denomioation or any section thereof shall have the right, subject to public
. prder, morality and health, •to establish and maintain institutions for
'--,,
j
.•'--
'·
;'"\
•
s.P. MITTAL v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
743
religious and charitable purposes,. to manage its own affairs in '
matters of religion, to own and acquire movable , and immovable
property anci to administer ·such property in accordance with law.
Art. 27 prohibits compulsion for payment of taxes for promotion of
any particular, religion. Art. 28 bars religious instruction in any
institution wholly maintained out of State funds and prevents com·
p11lsion to attend any. religious instruction or religious worship in
educational institutions tecognised by the State or receiving aid out ·
of State funds.
Apart from Articles 25 t<) 28, the word 'religion' occurs in
Arts .. 15(1), 15(2), 16(2), 16(5), 23(2), 29(2) and 30 of the Constitu·
ti on.
Art. 15(1) prescribes that the State shall n\)t
~iscrlminate
.