"Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Allowing Rolling Over Plantain Leaves, Stating ‘No Human Being Can Be Allowed to Be Degraded’"
Kiran Raj
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan, set aside the order of the single-judge court that had permitted the practice of rolling over plantain leaves after Annadhanam at the Nerur Sadhasiva Brahmendral Jeeva Samadhi in Karur District. The court observed that the issue had already been decided by a Division Bench in 2015, which had directed that "the respondents not to allow anyone to roll over on the plantain leaves left, after the meal is taken." The Division Bench stated that the single-judge court had no jurisdiction to overrule the previous decision and that the practice could not be revived.
The appellants included the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Tahsildar, Karur District, along with a private party who had obtained leave from the court. The original writ petition had been filed by P. Naveen Kumar, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Administration to consider his representation and grant permission for the religious event. The Division Bench noted that the 2015 judgment had attained finality and remained binding.
The writ petitioner contended that the earlier order had been obtained by misrepresentation and that there was no caste-based discrimination in the practice. He further stated that the practice had been followed without interruption until 2015 and that devotees believed rolling over plantain leaves after Annadhanam was an essential religious custom. The respondents argued that the single-judge court had rightly allowed the petition and that the practice was part of a religious tradition that should be protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench examined whether the 2015 order had conclusively decided the issue and whether the single-judge court had the jurisdiction to allow the writ petition. The court stated, "A single Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound to accept as correct the Judgments of Courts of coordinate jurisdiction and of Division Benches." The appellants argued that the judgment in 2015 was a judgment in rem and binding on all parties. The court referred to a Supreme Court ruling which stated that "a Judgment in a previous Public Interest Litigation would be a Judgment in rem. It binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the Court and raising any connected issue or an issue which had been raised or should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of Public Interest Litigation."
The court also noted that the previous Division Bench had examined the issue in light of constitutional provisions and fundamental rights. The 2015 judgment had held that "No human being can be allowed to be degraded, by following any practice or custom in the name of religion, which may infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India." The Division Bench had also taken into account an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a special leave petition concerning a similar religious practice, where the Supreme Court had stayed the ritual.
The Division Bench examined whether the single-judge court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition despite the existence of the previous ruling. The court stated, "The Judgment passed in 2015 is a Judgment in rem and is binding on all parties, including the writ petitioner." The appellants argued that rolling over plantain leaves was not an essential religious practice and that Article 25 does not protect customs that infringe upon dignity and health. The court referred to previous rulings which stated that only practices integral to a religion are constitutionally protected. The appellants also argued that the practice did not qualify as a religious denomination under Article 26, citing a ruling that required a religious denomination to have a common faith, organization, and distinctive name.
The court also examined the procedural aspects of the case, noting that the single-judge court had suo motu impleaded the Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police but had reserved orders on the same day. The Division Bench stated, "When a new respondent is impleaded, sufficient time must be granted to present their case." The appellants contended that the single-judge court’s order was contrary to judicial discipline, citing a Supreme Court ruling that lower benches are bound by decisions of coordinate and higher benches.
The respondents contended that the practice was a part of religious custom and should be permitted. They argued that the previous ruling had been obtained through misrepresentation. The court examined this claim and held that "the Judgment of the Division Bench made in 2015 was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation." The respondents cited a Supreme Court ruling that religious practices should not be curtailed except on grounds of public order, morality, or health. However, the Division Bench referred to the earlier finding that "religious practices should be in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."
The court concluded by stating, "For all these reasons, the impugned order, dated 17.05.2024 made in W.P.(MD).No.10496 of 2024 is set aside. Parties can await the ultimate decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending Civil Appeal No.4543 of 2017. Till such time, the practice of rolling over on the left over plantain leaves after partaking the meals at Nerur, Karur District shall not be permitted by the State and District Administration."
The court allowed the writ appeals and ordered, "To the extent indicated above, both these writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the appellants: N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, assisted by P. Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader, C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Senior Counsel, for S. Vanchinathan
For the respondents:
G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, for G. Thalaimutharasu
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel, for G. Thalaimutharasu
K. Suresh for the religious Sabha
P. Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader, for the district authorities
T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the police administration
Case Title: The District Collector, Karur District & Ors. v. P. Naveen Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: W.A.(MD).Nos.986 and 1261 of 2024
Bench: Justice R. Suresh Kumar, Justice G. Arul Murugan
[Read/Download order]
