Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment Upholds Religious Freedom: Court Allows Rathyatra Procession with Chariot

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


[City], [Date] – In a significant ruling, the [Court Name] delivered a landmark judgment today, affirming the right to religious freedom and allowing the revered Rathyatra procession to proceed with a chariot. The court emphasized the historical significance and purpose of the procession, rejecting any interference by the authorities.

The judgment, rendered in the case of WPA 14269 of 2023, titled Manoj Mishra v. State of West Bengal & Ors., came after the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Mishra, sought permission to carry the deity from a temple near the Delta Jute Mill gate to Beltala More using a chariot.

The court, presided over by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, observed, “To require the petitioner to physically carry the deity without a chariot would negate, defeat, and compromise the object and purpose of the Rathyatra.” The court further noted that Rathyatra had been a cherished tradition for thousands of years, where Lord Jagannath and Balabhadra traveled on a chariot to visit an unwell aunt.

Highlighting the religious significance of the procession, Justice Mantha stated, “People of all religious denominations have participated with joy and actively supported Rathyatra in this State. To restrict a Rathyatra and impose conditions would amount to interference with a religious practice which has not happened in this State or any other part of the country till date.”

Addressing concerns raised by the police about potential disruptions, the court emphasized that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the peaceful conduct of the procession. “If there is any anticipation of vested interest or elements to disrupt the religious function, stern procedural measures shall be taken by the police,” the court asserted.

The judgment reaffirmed the order passed on June 16, 2023, and disposed of the case, CAN 1 of 2023. The court ordered all parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website.

This ruling serves as a significant milestone in upholding religious freedom, recognizing the cultural and religious heritage associated with the Rathyatra procession. It affirms the right of individuals to practice their faith without unnecessary interference, safeguarding the diversity and inclusivity of religious traditions in the State.

Date of Judgment: June 19, 2023

Manoj Mishra VS State of West Bengal & Ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Manoj-vs-State-19-june-23-Cal.-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News