Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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