CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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