Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

Contents Of Azan Don't Violate Rights Of Other Faiths Under Article 25/26 Constitution: Karnataka High Court

Posted in: General Practice
Fri, Aug 26, 22, 19:59, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4822
Chandrashekhar R vs Karnataka that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of religious tolerance which is a characteristic of Indian civilization disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan

It is really good to learn that the Karnataka High Court in a very remarkable, refreshing, robust, recent and rational judgment titled Chandrashekhar R vs The State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 10473 of 2022 (GM-RES-PIL) pronounced as recently as on August 22, 2022 while observing that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of religious tolerance which is a characteristic of Indian civilization disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan (call for prayers in Islam) hurt the sentiments of believers of other faiths by rejecting such allegations. It must be noted that the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said quite clearly that:
Contention that the contents of Azan violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner as well as persons of other faith cannot be accepted. It must be mentioned here that Advocate Manjunath S Halawar appearing for the petitioner Chandrashekar R submitted that though Azan is an ‘essential religious practice’ of Muslims, however, the words Allahu Akbar used in Azan (translated as Allah is the greatest) affect the religious beliefs of others.

Needless to say, it is totally incomprehensible that as long as any individual is not forced to utter Allahu Akbar at gun point, how does it affects in anyway the religious beliefs of others? Why do some of us have such a narrow mentality? We must be more liberal and tolerant in our approach. This is exactly what the Karnataka High Court too has sought to demonstrate through this learned judgment also!

Personally speaking, I am a Hindu who firmly believes in Lord Shiv as the supreme power and have myself many times lived near mosques being from an Army background and really enjoy hearing Azan. To me, it signifies that we must get up as the morning time has begun and do some exercise or walk in balcony or in the road. In my life never have I ever considered it as interfering in my personal belief!

More intriguingly, I heard that even famous singer Sonu Nigam once complained of being disturbed in morning hours when he gets time to sleep by Azan. I really just can’t digest this point of view. It is said for a very short time as we all know and it only signifies beginning of morning early hours and that’s all! When I have full faith in my Lord Shiv and my Muslim brother has full faith in Allah and if he says Allahu Akbar then why should I consider it as a intervention in anyway in my personal religious beliefs as long as I am not forced to chant it? Whether it is said five times as it is, it just does not bother me at all and even if my Muslim brothers utter it 10 times then also it will not bother as it is a very small issue which I must be generous enough to concede that it is an integral part of their religion and why should I consider it as an invasion on my religion or my God?

It must be mentioned here that it is pointed out at the start of this notable judgment that:
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order, directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to stop the mosques or masjids in the state of Karnataka for using the objectionable words through loudspeakers while calling azan or adhan prayer 5 times in a day throughout the 365 days in a year and etc.

At the outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Acting Chief Justice – Hon’ble Mr Alok Aradhe and Hon’ble Mr Justice S Vishwajith Shetty sets the pitch in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Mr. Manjunath S. Halawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner, who claims to be a resident of Bengaluru, has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order, Directing the Respondent No.1 to 4 to stop the mosques or masjids in the State of Karnataka for using the objectionable words through loudspeakers while calling Azan or Adhan prayer 5 times in a day throughout the 365 days in a year.

(ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ directing to take step in order to seizure and confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers and such other equipment’s installed in mosques/ masjids for using the objectionable words while calling Azan or Adhan prayer in the State of Karnataka.

Simply put, the Bench then states in para 2 that:
The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated are that Azan or Adhan prayers are being offered through loudspeakers and public address systems five times a day between 6.00 a.m to 10.00 p.m throughout the year from the mosques or masjids in the State of Karnataka.

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that:
The grievance of the petitioner as averred in the writ petition is that calling of Azan or Adhan, though is an essential religious practice of muslims, however, the contents of the Azan or Adhan are hurting the believers of other religious faiths.

Simply stated, the Bench then mentions in para 4 that:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contents of the Azan or Adhan hurts the sentiments of believers of other faiths and, therefore, a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to stop the mosques/masjids in the State of Karnataka from using the contents through the loudspeakers or public address systems while calling Azan or Adhan prayers five times a day.

Needless to state, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that:
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then makes it clear in para 6 that, Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India embodies the principle of religious toleration which is a characteristic of Indian Civilization. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India confers a fundamental right on all persons to freely profess, practice and propagate their own religion. However, the aforesaid right is not an absolute right, but is subject to restrictions on the grounds of public order, morality and health, as well as subject to other provisions in Part III of the Constitution of India.

Most forthrightly, most commendably and also most significantly, the Bench then minces just no words to most remarkably hold in para 7 that:
Undoubtedly, the petitioner as well as the believers of other faiths have the right to practice their religion. Azan or Adhan is a call to offer prayers. However, the contention that the contents of Azan or Adhan violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner as well as the persons of other faith cannot be accepted. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of the petitioner himself that his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is being infringed in any manner by calling of Azan or Adhan through loudspeakers or public address systems.

While adding a rider to what is stated hereinabove, the Bench then deems it apposite to state in para 8 that:
However, before parting with the case, it is worth mentioning that the aforesaid right to practice religion is not an absolute right but, is subject to restrictions on the grounds of public order, morality and health, as well as other rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.

Be it noted, the Bench then specifies in para 9 that:
The use of loudspeakers, public address systems and sound producing instruments is governed by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 read with Section 37 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

It is worth noting that the Bench then directs in para 10 that:
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are, therefore, directed to ensure that the loudspeakers, public address systems, sound producing instruments and other musical instruments shall not be permitted to be used above permissible decibel during night from 10.00 p.m to 6.00 a.m.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 11 that:
A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 17.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.4574/2021 has directed respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to carry out a drive to prevent the misuse of loudspeakers and public address systems. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall follow the directions issued by this Court by an order dated 17.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.4574/2021 and shall file a compliance report before this Court within a period of eight weeks. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

In conclusion, we thus see that the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has made it indubitably clear that contents of Azan don’t violate rights of other faiths under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution. But it has also in the same vein directed in para 10 that in night time the sound must be within the permissible limits as stated above. It merits no reiteration that the same must be complied with accordingly so that others don’t get disturbed even though I personally never feels disturbed by it rather always enjoy listening it the most in the morning time especially. Of course, it is a no-brainer and incumbent that we all must definitely be more tolerant and broad minded in our overall approach so that our nation becomes most peaceful, prosperous, progressive and powerful!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
India is going on grate path of welfare-state. Mahatma Gandhi's greatest ambition for India was to wipe every tear from every eye
Social justice means a way of life with liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.
BJP after always repeatedly assuring the lawyers of West UP that they will make sure that a high court bench is created soon here as soon as it comes to power has reneged on its tall promises and has done virtually nothing on this score till now
To start with, I say this not as a lawyer of West UP but as a good citizen of India that the unending protest of lawyers of West UP severely affects the litigants who have to wait repeatedly to get justice. But who is responsible for this
It is most baffling to note that Centre since 1947 till 2018 has consistently, callously, blatantly and brazenly disregarded the numerous hardships faced by the more than 9 crore people of West UP in travelling nearly 700 to 750 km
Uttarakhand High Court in the landmark case of Lalit Kumar v Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 203 of 2014 dated 12 June 2018 directed the Centre to establish a Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand within four months.
West UP which deserved statehood right since 1947 has not even a single bench of a high court since last more than 70 years
High Court of Kerala has in a historic move directed the Indian Railways to treat identity cards issued to lawyers by respective Bar Councils as a valid identity proof to undertake a train journey/travel.
Constitution of Special District Courts to try cases as per the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Foreign law Firms cannot Practice in India, but they are free to give legal advice regarding foreign law on diverse international legal issues on a fly in and fly out basis if it does not amount to practice.
Each and every person who is humane whether he/she is Indian or Pakistani or anyone else is overjoyed on learning the news of the release of Abhinandan
crime against women are multiplying most rapidly in UP and this is most felt in West UP which is the worst affected of all the regions of UP.
In our country around 5 lakh accidents take place every year and 1.5 lakh deaths occur. In world highest number of deaths due to the accidents take place in India. It is our responsibility to control these deaths and promote road safety.
It was decided unanimously by all the lawyers of 22 districts of West UP to go on strike on November 25, 2019 and observe it as  protest day. The lawyers of West UP are not happy with the statement of Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad about the creation of a high court bench in West UP
parents of a married son are not entitled to claim filial compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Rambabu Singh Thakur v/s Sunil Arora serious note of the increase in the number of tainted candidates facing criminal cases entering politics. It has issued a slew of directions in this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment which we shall discuss later.
J&K High Court Bar Association v. UOI dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought prohibition of use of pellet guns. How long can security forces restrain themselves if public becomes unruly and start pelting stones, bottles and what not
Harmanbhai Umedbhai Patel vs Bindu Kumar Mohanlal Shahupheld an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) dismissing a complaint alleging professional misconduct by a lawyer. There was no professional misconduct found on the part of the lawyer.
Kangana Ranaut vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from carrying out any further demolition at Kangana Ranaut's residence in Bandra
The Telangana Fire Works Dealers Association vs. P Indra Prakash has modified the order of the Telangana High Court which imposed a complete and immediate ban on the sale and use of firecrackers across the state during Diwali to fall in line with the directions imposed by the National Green Tribunal on November 9
The non-availability of birth certificate is issued when the person does not have a birth proof. One can visit the municipal corporation, gram panchayat or chief medical officer in the area where he or she is born and apply for this document, showing address proof and proofs of 2 more witnesses on an affidavit.
M. Thangaraj (Ex. MC) v. The District Collector, Dindigul to follow the ritual of taking a procession around the temple (Girivalam) has recently on January 18, 2021 observed that all the religious processions should spread positivity and brotherhood and in no manner should be a cause for any communal disturbance.
K Raju v. UOI only senior citizens/parents are entitled to file an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to take action against people found slaughtering cattle including cows and/or exhibiting for sale flesh of slaughtered cattle and/or selling cattle meat.
Legal Industry and the Enhancement of the Technology Towards the Progressive Development In An Amicable Manner
Omnarayan Sharma Vs MP issued directions to the District Legal Services Authorities and the State Authority for ensuring implementation of poverty alleviation schemes promulgated under provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and NALSA
Javed v Uttar Pradesh that the cow should be declared the national animal and cow protection should be made a fundamental right of the Hindus because we know that when the country's culture and its faith get hurt, the country becomes weak.
The ‘Green Channel’ is an automated and transparent system for gaining approval for certain type and combination of mergers and acquisition.
Hasae @ Hasana Wae vs UP that dilution of constitutional autonomy of the High Courts would threaten the concept of judicial federalism envisaged in the Constitution and affirmed by judicial precedents.
Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti that the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple and Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity.
Alkesh Vs MP in a case under SC/ST Act, the caste of the complainant is of paramount importance and is a sine qua non and that it can't be assumed that the complainant would forget to mention in the FIR that the assailants had made aspersions against his caste.
The non-availability of birth certificate is a document to register unregistered birth. It can also be used in case the applicant has lost his birth certificate to a fire, flood or any other reason.
a Dalit man named Lakhbir Singh aged 35 years who was a food server with no political affiliation of any kind or any past criminal record would first be beaten black
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Kapil Sibal states The whole Act is an attempt to aggrandize the power of the State.
Char Dham Highway expansion in full court room exchange took the extremely commendable, clear, cogent, composed, courageous and convincing stand that concerns of defence forces cannot be overridden.
Bindu v. Allahabad that as per Article 233(2), a person seeking appointment as a District Judge must be practicing as an advocate for continuous 7 years (without any break) on the date of application.
TC Gupta v. UOI that the petitioner-advocate who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc without having been specifically authorized in this regard by the litigants which cannot be glossed over.
Swaran Kaur vs Punjab that entitlement for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents needs to be seen after the widow or the children loose their eligibility for the grant of the said benefit.
Zubair Ahmed Teli Vs. Union Territory of J&K that there is no requirement of prior consideration of the social investigation report by Juvenile Justice Board while considering a bail plea under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act,
Suresh Kumar vs CP upholding the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers passports of the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be dealt with iron hands.
Mohd Abdul Khaliq Vs UP that the Central Government would take the request appropriate decision to ban cow slaughter in the country and to declare the same as a protected national animal.
Nikhil Singh Vs UOI that: As would be evident from the chart supplied by Dr KN Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, most of the Airports/Airstrips in the State of Bihar are non-functional.
While striking entirely the right chord as the lawyers anticipated also, we saw how just recently it was none other than the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Dr Adish C Aggarwala who recently got elected as President after surpassing many of his strong competitors with most strongest being Mr Dushyant Dave
Al Tawaf Hajj And Umrah Travel And Tourism vs UoI that: Haj Pilgrimage and the ceremonies involved therein and the ceremonies involved therein fall within the ambit of a religious practice, which is protected by the Constitution of India.
It is ‘shockingly bizarre’ that UP has maximum pending cases among all States that is more than 10 lakhs in High Courts and about a crore in lower courts and has maximum population
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs BN Magon that an advocate’s office run from a residential building is not subject to property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as a business building.
Meena Pradhan vs Kamla Pradhan that a will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act.
Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man/woman
Top