The Aryavarth Express
Agency (Chennai): The Madras High Court recently ruled that the right to privacy, which includes sexual and gender orientation, also extends to spiritual orientation. This allows individuals to perform religious practices of their choice, provided they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed, “If the right to privacy includes sexual and gender orientation, it certainly includes one’s spiritual orientation also. It is open to a person to express this orientation in the manner he deems fit. Of course, it should not affect the rights and freedoms belonging to others. So long as this rubicon is not crossed, it is not open to the State or the Courts to impinge on one’s action.”
This observation came in the context of a petitioner’s right to perform Angapradakshinam, a ritual involving rolling over plantain leaves left behind by other devotees after eating. The court recognized this practice under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21, and 25(1) of the Constitution.
The court stated, “It is not open to the court to challenge the belief entertained by the petitioner as regards the spiritual efficacy of the practice…. Performing angapradakshinam on banana leaves after the guests have eaten is an act of high religious worship by Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral’s devotees. This right is protected by Part III of the Constitution of India [Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 21 and Article 25(1)].”
In 2015, a single judge of the Madras High Court directed authorities not to allow anyone to perform Angapradakshinam, citing concerns about human dignity. The petitioner in the present case sought permission to perform the ritual, arguing it as his fundamental right. The authorities, however, cited the earlier judgment to deny his request.
Revisiting past judicial decisions, the court noted that the petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 25(1) to carry out his religious vow, believing it would confer spiritual benefits.
The court emphasized that personal choices, including religious practices, are intrinsic to privacy. “Privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place,” the court noted. It added that the right to move freely across the country, as envisaged under Article 19(1)(d), includes practices like Angapradakshinam.
The court also declared that the petitioner did not need prior permission to perform the ritual and that authorities should not interfere. The police are obligated to aid the petitioner if any obstructions arise.
The court highlighted that the previous 2015 order suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, as the devotees were not impleaded in a representative capacity. It noted that directions were issued without giving the temple trustees or devotees a chance to present their case.
Moreover, the court found that Article 17, which addresses untouchability, was incorrectly applied. The practice of Angapradakshinam, according to the District Administration, is performed by devotees from all communities, promoting communal harmony and social integration.
The court thus allowed the petition, restraining authorities from interfering with the performance of Angapradakshinam.
