Writ Appeal
The writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent concern two cases with various appellants, including officials from the Karur District government, against respondents including P. Naveen Kumar and the Nerur Sathguru Sathasiva Brammediral Sabha. Both appeals seek to challenge the order dated May 17, 2024, from the previous writ petition, W.P.(MD).No.10496 of 2024. Notable legal representatives are involved, indicating the significance and complexity of the cases [page.1].
Court Details
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reserved its judgment on W.A.(MD).Nos.986 and 1261 on July 30, 2024 [page.1].
Writ Appeals Overview
Writ Appeals W.A.(MD).Nos.986 and 1261 of 2024 outline the legal proceedings and relevant considerations surrounding the appeals presented. The document provides insights into the implications of these writ appeals on the judicial process and the parties involved. It highlights key arguments and legal precedents that inform the case’s context [page.1].
Case Background
Religious Practices & Writ proceedings
The writ petition was seeking permission to conduct Annadhanam (food offering) and Angapradakshinam (rolling over used plantain leaves) at Nerur Village on May 18, 2024, for Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral’s Jeeva Samadhi day. The petition explains that the Nerur Sathguru Sadhasiva Brahmendra Sabha traditionally organizes this festival where food is first offered to Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral and then distributed to all devotees regardless of caste or religion. After the meal, devotees perform Nerthikadan by rolling over the used plantain leaves, believing that Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral eats with them and that this practice brings blessings.
Despite a previous court order hindering the customs since 2015 due to misrepresentations regarding caste practices, the first respondent, Naveen Kumar, asserts that the event has no caste discrimination and has sought permission to resume the religious observance on 18.05.2024. With support from the community, he filed a writ petition after the District Administration failed to respond to his request.
Naveen Kumar’s further arguments that the Annadhanam event traditionally occurs during the Tamil month of Vaigasi on Sukhla Dhasami Thithi and was performed uninterruptedly until 2015, till the District Administration prohibited it based on a court order in W.P.(MD).No.7068 of 2015.
Kumar contends that the 2015 court order was based on misrepresentation claiming that one community would roll over plantain leaves left by another community, which he asserts is incorrect.
He maintains there has been no caste discrimination in this religious practice, and on April 22, 2024, he submitted a representation to District Administration officials seeking permission to conduct the Annadhanam and rolling ceremony, but received no response, prompting him to file the writ petition [pages 6 &7].
Writ Proceedings in single bench
On May 17, 2024, the writ court allowed the petition by restraining the District Collector, District Revenue Officer, and Tahsildar from interfering with the Annadhanam and rolling ceremony at Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral’s Jeeva Samadhi place in Nerur. Aggrieved by this order, the District Administration filed writ appeal W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2024, and one V. Aranganathan, after obtaining leave from the court as a third party, filed W.A.(MD).No.1261 of 2024 also challenging the May 17 order.
Final Judgment
The appellants argue that the writ petition was not maintainable before the writ court and should have been dismissed at the outset, as a similar issue had already been decided by a Division Bench and is currently pending in the Supreme Court. They contend that the writ court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition based on the ongoing case regarding practices at Kukke Subramanya Temple. Therefore, they assert that the ruling should be set aside due to these jurisdictional and procedural issues.
Judicial Discipline
The impugned order violates judicial discipline, as established precedents dictate that judgments in public interest litigation are binding and cannot be reconsidered without appropriate authority. The court emphasizes that the practice of rolling on leftover plantain leaves is not a necessary religious practice under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and raises health concerns, hence the state has the right to prohibit it. The violation of judicial process highlighted in the writ court’s ruling underscores the necessity for adherence to established legal principles to maintain certainty and credibility within the judicial system.
Interlocutory Application Disposed
The interlocutory application was deemed infructuous due to scheduled ceremonies occurring from December 15 to 18, 2015, which rendered the basis for the application no longer applicable. Therefore, the application has been disposed of. The civil appeal is then listed for final disposal as per its schedule.
Judicial Discretion Consistency
The Supreme Court decision in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana emphasizes the importance of consistency and uniformity in judicial discretion when dealing with interlocutory orders. Although binding precedents do not apply, similar cases should generally receive uniform treatment to avoid grievances arising from discriminatory practices, unless factual differences warrant a different approach [Page 117].
Pending Civil Appeal
The SLP (Civil) No.33137 of 2014 has been converted into Civil Appeal No.4543 of 2017, which remains pending [Page 117].
Supreme Court Interim Orders
Interlocutory orders from the highest court must be respected by all lower courts, especially when the Supreme Court has granted a stay on practices such as rolling over on plantain leaves. The writ court improperly assumed jurisdiction by declaring a prior Division Bench Judgment a nullity, which should not be approved. The matter of whether this practice contravenes public or constitutional morality cannot be settled at this time due to ongoing related cases in the Supreme Court [Page 118]
Religious Practice and Public Morality
The case W.P.(MD).No.7068 of 2015 concerns V.Dalit, addressing issues related to religious practice and its implications on public morality. The proceedings delve into the complex relationship between individual rights to practice religion and societal ethical standards. The ruling aims to clarify these intersections while ensuring the protection of constitutional rights [Page 120].
Finality of Division Bench Judgment
66. Conclusion
66.1. The practice of rolling over on the left over plantain leaves after partaking the meals at Nerur Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral Samathi / Temple or in that locality at Karur District may be a religious practice or the practice of a particular religious denomination which may not hit either under public order or health within the meaning of Article 25 of the Constitution.
66.2. However, such a practice, whether would go against the public morality or constitutional morality is a matter to be gone into, which, cannot be decided by this Corut at this juncture, in view of the issue in a similar lis arising out of the High Court of Karnataka having been seized off and pending with an order of stay before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4543 of 2017 in the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. Adivasi Budakattu Hitarakshana Vedike Karnataka and others.
66.3. At the same time, since the Division Bench Judgment made in W.P.(MD).No.7068 of 2015, dated 28.04.2015 in the matter of V.Dalit Pandiyan v. Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and others, has already attained the finality and being the Judgment of a higher forum of the High Court (Division Bench), the same since cannot be nullified by a lesser forum (single Bench), the decision that has been made in that regard by the writ court through the impugned order cannot be approved by this Court.
66.4. 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 final judgment of the Division Bench in V.Dalit Pandiyan v. Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu remains unassailable by a single Bench, thus the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 is set aside. Until the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides on the pending Civil Appeal No.4543 of 2017, the rolling over of plantain leaves after meals in Nerur, Karur District is prohibited by the State and District Administration. Both writ appeals W.A.(MD).Nos.986 and 1261 of 2024 are allowed without costs.
Judgments Relied Upon in the Judgment
1. State of Karnataka and others v. Adivasi Budakattu Hitarakshana Vedike Karnataka and others – Citation: Special Leave Petition (C) No.33137 of 2014
2. W.P.(MD).No.7068 of 2015 – Citation: Judgment dated 28.04.2015
3. Commissioner, H.R.E v. L.T.Swamiar – Citation: AIR 1954 SC 282
4. S.P.Mittal v. Union of India – Citation: (1983) 1 SCC 51
5. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala and others – Citation: (2019) 11 SCC 1
6. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra – Citation: (2005) 2 SCC 673
7. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand – Citation: (2008) 10 SCC 1
8. P.Suseela and others v. University Grants Commission and others – Citation: (2015) 8 SCC 129
9. Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors – Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12
10. Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana – Citation: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461
11. Dr.Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish – Citation: (2001) 2 SCC 247
12. U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey – Citation: (2007) 11 SCC 92
13. State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer – Citation: (2003) 5 SCC 448
14. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh – Citation: (1989) 2 SCC 754
15. Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane – Citation: (1989) 3 SCC 396
16. State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd – Citation: (2004) 11 SCC 26
17. Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chandra – Citation: AIR 1965 SC 1767
18. State of U.P. and others v. Jeet S.Bisht – Citation: (2007) 6 SCC 586
19. Coir Board, Ernakulam v. Indira Devi P.S – Citation: (1998) 3 SCC 259
20. Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik – Citation: (2002) 1 SCC 1
Party
The District Collector, Karur District vs. P. Naveen Kumar, Nerur Sathguru Sathasiva Brammediral Sabha (Rep. by its President, S. Ramesh) – March 13, 2025 (Pronounced) Judges – The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar, The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan.
