titions Nos
6890 7204 of 1982 and 3491 of 1983
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India Ram Jethmalani VM Tarkunde and R Dwivedi for the Petitioner
MK Ramamurthi DP Mukherjee and GS Chatterjee for the Respondents State of West Bengal
KK Venugopal Ms Inderjit Sen and GS Chatterjee for the Respondent
Danial A Latiffi and RS Sodhi for the Intervener All India Lawyers Union
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The petitioner in Writ Petition No 689082 a monk of the Ananda Marga and currently General Secretary Public Relations Department of the Ananda Marga Pracharak Sangh has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a direction to the Commissioner of Police Calcutta and the State of West Bengal to allow processions to be carried in the public streets and meetings to be held in public places by the followers of the Ananda Marga cult accompanied by the performance of Tandava dance within the State of West Bengal
There are two connected writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos
720482  349183 by the Diocese Secretary of West Bengal Region and another follower of Ananda Marga
All these Petitions raise this common question and have been heard at a time
For convenience the petition by the General Secretary Public Relations Department of the Ananda Marga Pracharak Sangh has been treated as the main petition and references in the judgment have been confined to it
451 In the original petition certain factual assertions have been made and after counter affidavits were filed several further affidavits have been placed before the Court on behalf of the petitioner and counter affidavits too have been filed
Shorn of unnecessary details the averments on behalf of the respective contenders are as follows Shri Pravat Ranjan Sarkar otherwise known as Shri Ananda Murti founded a socio spiritual organisation claimed to have been dedicated to the service of humanity in different spheres of life such as physical mental and spiritual irrespective of caste creed or colour in the year 1955
In the initial period the Headquarters of this organisation was located near Ranchi in the State of Bihar but later it has been shifted to a place within the City of Calcutta in West Bengal
It has been pleaded that Ananda Marga contains no dogmatic beliefs and teaches the yogic and spiritual science to every aspirant
In order to realise the Supreme Ananda Marga does not believe that it is necessary to abandon home profession or occupation and spiritual sadhana is possible at any place and concurrently with fulfilling all duties and responsibilities of family life
It has been pleaded that Ananda Marga shows the way and explains the methods for spiritual advancement and this helps man to practice his dharma
According to the petitioner Lord Shiva had performed Tandava Dance in 108 forms but Shaivite literature has given details of 64 kinds only
Seven forms out of these 64 appear to have been commonly accepted and they are called Kalika Gouri Sandhya Sambhara Tripura Urdhava and Ananda
The first of these forms elaborates the main aspects of shiva while the seventh ie the Ananda Tandava portrays all the manifold responsibilities of the Lord
Ananda Tandava is claimed to have taken place at Tillai the ancient name of Chidambaram now situated in the State of Tamil Nadu
It is the petitioner s stand that the word Tandava is derived from the root Tandu which means to jump about and Shiva was the originator of Tandava about 6500 years ago
Ananda Murtiji as the petitioner maintains is the Supreme Father of the Ananda Margis
It is customary for every Ananda Margi after being duly initiated to describe Ananda Murtiji as his father
One of the prescriptions of religious rites to be daily performed by an Ananda Margi is Tandava Dance and this is claimed to have been so introduced from the year 1966 by the preceptor
This dance is to be performed with a skull a small symbolic knife and a Trishul
It is also customary to hold a lathi and a damroo
It is explained that the knife or the sword symbolises the force which cuts through the fetters of the mundane world and 452 allows human beings to transcend towards perfection the trishul or the trident symbolises the fight against static forces in the three different spheres of human existence spiritual mental and physical the lathi which is said to be a straight stick stands out as the symbol of straightforwardness or simplicity the damroo is the symbol to bring out rhythmic harmony between eternal universal music and the entitative sound and the skull is the symbol of death reminding every man that life is short and therefore every moment of life should be utilised in the service of mankind and salvation should be sought
The petitioner has further maintained that Ananda Margis greet their spiritual preceptor Shri Ananda Murti with a dance of Tandava wherein one or two followers use the skull and the symbolic knife and dance for two or three minutes
At intervals processions are intended to be taken out in public places accompanied by the Tandava dance as a religious practice
Though in subsequent affidavits and in the course of argument an attempt was made by Mr Tarkunde to assert that Ananda Marga is a new religious order we do not think there is any justification to accept such a contention when it runs counter to the pleadings in paragraphs 4 and 17 of the writ petition
In paragraph 4 it was specifically pleaded that Ananda Marga is more a denomination than an institutionalised religion and in paragraph 17 it was pleaded that Ananda Margis are Shaivites  We shall therefore proceed to deal with this petition on the footing that as pleaded by the petitioner Ananda Marga is a religious denomination of the Shaivite order which is a well known segment of Hindu religion
Though the petitioner had pleaded that Tandava dance has been practiced and performed by every Ananda Margi for more than three decades it has been conceded in the course of the hearing that Tandava Dance was introduced for the first time as a religious rite for Ananda Margis in or around 1966
Therefore by the time of institution of this writ petition the practice was at best prevalent for about 16 years
The Commissioner of Police respondent 1 before us is alleged to have made repetitive orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973  Code  for short from August 1979 directing that no member of a procession or assembly of five or more persons should carry any fire arms explosives swords spears knives tridents lathis or any article which may be used as weapon of offence or any article likely to cause annoyance to the 453 public for example skulls  A petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by the General Secretary of Ananda Marga for a writ of mandamus against the respondents for a direction not to interfere with or place restraints on the freedom of conscience and free profession practice and propogation of their religion including Tandava Dance in matter No 903 of 1980
The Calcutta High Court rejected the said petition on September 23 1980 and observed It is open to any one in this country to practice any religion but the religious practice must not be inconsistent with the susceptibility or sensibility or fairness or public order
Tandava dance as such may not be objectionable
In the streets of Calcutta all kinds of demonstrations and procession are being held every day which may on many occasions cause disturbance to others and interrupt the free flow of traffic
In spite of the same such demonstrations and processions are allowed to take place particularly every day by the authority concerned
If the petitioners or any member of their group want to hold a procession or reception or demonstration accompanied by any dance or music that by itself may not be objectionable
However brandishing fire torches or skulls or daggers in the public places including streets cannot come under the same category
Here other things are involved
The interests of other members of the public are involved the sense of security of the others is also involved
The authorities concerned have to keep in mind the question of the feelings of other members of the public and the question of the possibility of any attempt to retaliate or counter act to the same are also to be considered
Taking into consideration all these factors I am of the opinion that the petitioners do not have any legal right and they have not established any legal right to carry fire torches skulls and daggers in public places or public streets and do not intend to pass any order entitling the petitioners to do so
However the petitioners shall be entitled to go in procession or hold any demonstration without any such fire tourches daggers or skulls
However this would be subject to prevailing law of the land in the particular area
For example in the High Court Dalhousie Square and Assembly order under section 144 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code is promulgated from time to time
This order would not entitle the petitioners to hold any such procession demonstration in violation of such promulgation if any
This order would also not entitle the petitioners to hold any procession or demonstration without the permission of the authority concerned when such permission is required for such purposes under any existing law
 On March 29 1982 respondent 1 made a fresh order under s144 of the Code wherein the same restraints as mentioned in the earlier order were imposed
An application for permission to take out a procession on the public street accompanied with Tandava dance was rejected and that led to the filing of this petition
The petitioner asserts that tandava dance is an essential part of the religious rites of the Ananda Margis and that they are entitled to practise the same both in private as also in public places and interference by the respondents is opposed to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution
The order under s144 of the Code has been assailed mainly on the ground that it does not state the material facts of the case though the statute requires such statement as a condition precedent to the making of the order
Repetitive orders under s144 of the Code it has been contended are not contemplated by the Code and therefore making of such orders is an abuse of the law and should not be countenanced
Two separate returns have been made to the rule nisi
Respondent 1 has filed a counter affidavit alleging that Ananda Marga is an organisation which believes in violence and if Ananda Margis are permitted to carry open swords or daggers in public processions it is bound or likely to disturb public peace and tranquillity and is fraught with the likelihood of breach of public order and would affect public morality
Carrying of human skulls and indulging in provocative dances with human skulls is not only repulsive to public taste and morality but is bound and is likely to raise fears in the minds of the people particularly children thereby affecting public order morality peace and tranquility
It has been further pleaded that the petitioner or for the matter of that Ananda Margis can have no fundamental right to carry weapons in the public in procession or otherwise nor have they any right to perform tandava dance with daggers and human skulls
It is stated that Ananda 455 Marga is a politico religious organisation started in 1961 by Shri Pravat Ranjan Sarkar alias Sri Ananda Murti who is a self styled tantrik yogi
Reference has been made to an incident of 1971 which led to prosecution of Sri Ananda Murti and some of his followers
It is stated that militancy continues to be the main feature of the organisation
Prior to promulgation of the prohibitory orders it has been pleaded Ananda Margis took out processions carrying lethal weapons like tridents lathis as well as human skulls and knives from time to time and caused much annoyance to the public in general and onlookers in particular and this tended to disturb public peace tranquillity and public order
In spite of the prohibitory orders in force from August 10 1979 a procession was taken out on the following day within the city of Calcutta by Ananda Margis with lathis tridents Knives skulls and the procession became violent
The assembly was declared unlawful and the police force was obliged to intervene
The police personnel on duty including a Deputy Commissioner of Police received injuries
Reference to several other incidents has also been made in the counter affidavit of the Police Commissioner
The State Government has supported the stand of the Police Commissioner in its separate affidavit
We have already indicated that the claim that Ananda Marga is a separate religion is not acceptable in view of the clear assertion that is was not an institutionalised religion but was a religious denomination
The principle indicated by Gajendragadkar CJ while speaking for the Court in Sastri Yagnapurushadji  Ors
vs Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya  Anr also supports the conclusion that Ananda Marga cannot be a separate religion by itself
In that case the question for consideration was whether the followers of Swaminarayan belonged to a religion different from that of Hinduism
The learned Chief Justice observed Even a cursory study of the growth and development of Hindu religion through the ages shows that whenever a saint or a religious reformer attempted the task of reforming Hindu religion and fighting irrational or corrupt practices which had crept into it a sect was born which was governed by its own tenets but which basically subscribed to the fundamental notions of Hindu religion and Hindu philosophy  456 The averments in the writ petition would seem to indicate a situation of this type
We have also taken into consideration the writings of Shri Ananda Murti in books like Carya Carya Namah Shivaya Shantaya A Guide to Human Conduct and Ananda Vachanamritam
These writings by Shri Ananda Murti are essentially founded upon the essence of Hindu philosophy
The test indicated by the learned Chief Justice in the case referred to above and the admission in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that Ananda Margis belong to the Shaivite order lead to the clear conclusion that Ananda Margis belong to the Hindu religion
Mr Tarkunde for the petitioner had claimed protection of Article 25 of the Constitution but in view of our finding that Ananda Marga is not a separate religion application of Article 25 is not attracted
The next aspect for consideration is whether Ananda Marga can be accepted to be a religious denomination
In The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt Mukherjee J as the learned Judge then was spoke for the Court thus As regards article 26 the first question is what is the precise meaning or connotation of the expression religious denomination  and whether a Math could come within this expression
The word denomination  has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean a collection of individuals classed together under the same name a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name 
 This test has been followed in The Durgah Committee Ajmer  Anr
v Syed Hussain Ali  Ors
In the majority judgment in section P Mittal etc
vs Union of India  Ors reference to this aspect has also been made and it has been stated The words religious denomination  in Article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word religion  and if this be so the expression religious denomination  must also satisfy three conditions 457 1 It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being that is a common faith 2 common organisation and 3 designation by a distinctive name Ananda Marga appears to satisfy all the three conditions viz it is a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being they have a common organisation and the collection of these individuals has a distinctive name
Ananda Marga therefore can be appropriately treated as a religious denomination within the Hindu religion
Article 26 of the Constitution provides that subject to public order morality and health every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
Mukherjea J in Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar s case supra adverted to the question as to what were the matters of religion and stated What then are matters of religion  The word religion  has not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition
In an American case Davie vs Benson  at 342 it has been said that the term religion  has reference to one s views of his relation to his Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence for His Being and Character and of obedience to His will
It is often confounded with cultus of form or worship of a particular sect but is distinguishable from the latter
We do not think that the above definition can be regarded as either precise or adequate
Articles 25 and 26 of our Constitution are based for the most part upon article 442 of the Constitution of Eire and we have great doubt whether a definition of religion  as given above could have been in the minds of our Constitution makers when they framed the Constitution
Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic
There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause
A religion undoubtedly 458 has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief
A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept it might prescribe rituals and observances ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress  Restrictions by the State upon free exercise of religion are permitted both under Articles 25 and 26 on grounds of public order morality and health
Clause 2 a of article 25 reserved the right of the State to regulate or restrict any economic financial political and other secular activities which may be associated with religious practice and there is a further right given to the State by sub clause b under which the State can legislate for social welfare and reform even though by so doing it might interfere with religious practices   The contention formulated in such broad terms cannot we think be supported
In the first place what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself
It the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire all these would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of article 26b  Courts have the power to determine whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by the tenets of a particular 459 religion
In Laxshmindra Thirtha Swamiar s case Mukherjea J observed This difference in judicial opinion brings out forcibly the difficult task which a Court has to perform in cases of this type where the freedom of religious convictions genuinely entertained by men come into conflict with the proper political attitude which is expected from citizens in matters of unity and solidarity of the State organization The same question arose in the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs State of Bombay  Ors1 The Court did go into the question whether certain matters appertained to religion and concluded by saying that these are certainly not matters of religion and the objection raised with regard to the validity of these provisions seems to be altogether baseless In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs State of Rajasthan  Ors2 this Court went into the question as to whether the tenets of the Vallabh denomination and its religious practices require that the worship by the devotees should be performed at the private temples and therefore the existence of public temples was inconsistent with the said tenets and practices and on an examination of this question negatived the plea
The question for consideration now therefore is whether performance of Tandava dance is a religious rite or practice essential to the tenets of the religious faith of the Ananda Margis
We have already indicated that tandava dance was not accepted as an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis when in 1955 the Ananda Marga order was first established
It is the specific case of the petitioner that Shri Ananda Murti introduced tandava as a part of religious rites of Ananda Margis later in 1966
Ananda Marga as a religious order is of recent origin and tandava dance as a part of religious rites of that order is still more recent
It is doubtful as to whether in such circumstances tandava dance can be taken as an essential religious rite of the Ananda Margis
Even conceding that it is so it is difficult to accept Mr Tarkunde s argument that taking out religious processions with tandava dance is an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis
In paragraph 17 of the writ petition the petitioner pleaded that Tandava Dance lasts for a few minutes where two or 460 three persons dance by lifting one leg to the level of the chest bringing it down and lifting the other In paragraph 18 it has been pleaded that when the Ananda Margis greet their spiritual preceptor at the airport etc they arrange for a brief welcome dance of tandava wherein one or two persons use the skull and symbolic knife and dance for two or three minutes
 In paragraph 26 it has been pleaded that Tandava is a custom among the sect members and it is a customary performance and its origin is over four thousand years old hence it is not a new invention of Ananda Margis
 On the basis of the literature of the Ananda Marga denomination it has been contended that there is prescription of the performance of tandava dance by every follower of Ananda Marga
Even conceding that tandava dance has been prescribed as a religious rite for every follower of the Ananda Marg it does not follow as a necessary corollary that tandava dance to be performed in the public is a matter of religious rite
In fact there is no justification in any of the writings of Shri Ananda Murti that tandava dance must be performed in public
Atleast none could be shown to us by Mr Tarkunde despite an enquiry by us in that behalf
We are therefore not in a position to accept the contention of Mr Tarkunde that performance of tandava dance in a procession or at public places is an essential religious rite to be performed by every Ananda Margi
Once we reach this conclusion the claim that the petitioner has a fundamental right within the meaning of Articles 25 or 26 to perform tandava dance in public streets and public places has to be rejected
In view of this finding it is no more necessary to consider whether the prohibitory order was justified in the interest of public order as provided in Article 25
It is the petitioner s definite case that the prohibitory orders under section 144 of the Code are being repeated at regular intervals from August 1979
Copies of several prohibitory orders made from time to time have been produced before us and it is not the case of the respondents that such repetitive prohibitory orders have not been made
The order under section 144 of the Code made in March 1982 has also been challenged on the ground that the material facts of the case have not been stated
Section 144 of the Code
as far as relevant provides 1 In cases where in the opinion of a District Magistrate a Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable such Magistrate may by a 461 written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134 direct  It has been the contention of Mr Tarkunde that the right to make the order is conditioned upon it being a written one and the material facts of the case being stated
Some High Courts have taken the view that this is a positive requirement and the validity of the order depends upon compliance of this provision
In our opinion it is not necessary to go into this question as counsel for the respondents conceded that this is one of the requirements of the provision and if the power has to be exercised it should be exercised in the manner provided on pain of invalidating for non compliance
There is currently in force a prohibitory order in the same terms and hence the question cannot be said to be academic
The other aspect viz the propriety of repetitive prohibitory orders is however to our mind a serious matter and since long arguments have been advanced we propose to deal with it
In this case as fact from October 1979 till 1982 at the interval of almost two months orders under section 1441 of the Code have been made from time to time
It is not disputed before us that the power conferred under this section is intended for immediate prevention of breach of peace or speedy remedy
An order made under this section is to remain valid for two months from the date of its making as provided in sub section 4 of section 144
The proviso to sub section
4 authorises the State Government in case it considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray to direct by notification that an order made by a Magistrate may remain in force for a further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have but for such order expired
The effect of the proviso therefore is that the State Government would be entitled to give the prohibitory order an additional term of life but that would be limited to six months beyond the two months  period in terms of sub section
4 of section 144 of the Code
Several decisions of different High Courts have rightly taken the view that it is not legitimate to go on making successive orders after earlier orders have lapsed by efflux of time
A Full Bench consisting of the entire Court of 12 Judges in Gopi Mohun Mullick vs Taramoni Chowdhrani1 examining the provisions of section 518 of the Code of 1861 corresponding to present section 144 took the view that such an action was beyond the Magistrate s powers
Making of successive orders was disapproved by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court 462 in Bishessur Chuckerbutty  Anr
vs Emperor1 Similar view was taken in Swaminatha Mudaliar vs Gopalakrishna Naidu2 Taturam Sahu vs The State of Orissa3 Ram Das Gaur vs The City Magistrate Varanasi4 and Ram Narain Sah  Anr
vs Parmeshwar Prasad Sah  Ors5 We have no doubt that the ratio of these decisions represents a correct statement of the legal position
The proviso to sub section
4 of section 144 which gives the State Government jurisdiction to extend the prohibitory order for a maximum period of six months beyond the life of the order made by the Magistrate is clearly indicative of the position that Parliament never intended the life of an order under section 144 of the Code to remain in force beyond two months when made by a Magistrate
The scheme of that section does not contemplate repetitive orders and in case the situation so warrants steps have to be taken under other provisions of the law such as section 107 or section 145 of the Code when individual disputes are raised and to meet a situation such as here there are provisions to be found in the Police Act
If repetitive orders are made it would clearly amount to abuse of the power conferred by s144 of the Code
It is relevant to advert to the decision of this Court in Babulal Parate vs State of Maharashtra  Ors6 where the vires of section 144 of the Code was challenged
Upholding the provision this Court observed Public order has to be maintained in advance in order to ensure it and therefore it is competent to a legislature to pass a law permitting an appropriate authority to take anticipatory action or place anticipatory restrictions upon particular kinds of acts in an emergency for the purpose of maintaining public order  It was again emphasized But it is difficult to say that an anticipatory action taken by such an authority in an emergency where danger to public order is genuinely apprehended is anything other than an action done in the discharge of the duty to maintain order  463 This Court had therefore appropriately stressed upon the feature that the provision of section 144 of the Code was intended to meet an emergency
This postulates a situation temporary in character and therefore the duration of an order under section 144 of the Code could never have been intended to be semi permanent in character
Similar view was expressed by this Court in Gulam Abbas  Ors
vs State of UP  Ors where it was said that the entire basis of action under section 144 is provided by the urgency of the situation and the power thereunder is intended to be availed of for preventing disorders obstructions and annoyances with a view to secure the public weal by maintaining public peace and tranquillity   Certain observations in Gulam Abbas s decision regarding the nature of the order under section 144 of the Code judicial or executive to the extent they run counter to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Babulal Parate s case may require reconsideration but we agree that the nature of the order under section 144 of the Code is intended to meet emergent situation
Thus the clear and definite view of this Court is that an order under section 144 of the Code is not intended to be either permanent or semi permanent in character
The concensus of judicial opinion in the High Courts of the country is thus in accord with the view expressed by this Court
It is not necessary on that ground to quash the impugned order of March 1982 as by efflux of time it has already ceased to be effective
It is appropriate to take note of the fact that the impugned order under section 144 of the Code did not ban processions or gatherings at public places even by Ananda Margis
The prohibition was with reference to the carrying of daggers trishuls and skulls
Even performance of tandava dance in public places which we have held is not an essential part of religious rites to be observed by Ananda Margis without these has not been prohibited
The writ petitions have to fail on our finding that performance of tandava dance in procession in the public streets or in gatherings in public places is not an essential religious rite of the followers of Ananda Marga
In the circumstance there will be no order as to costs


Summary:
Respondent No 1 was alleged to have been making repetitive orders under s144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 from August 1979 directing that no member of a procession or assembly of five or more persons should carry any fire arms explosives swords spears knives tridents lathis or any article which may be used as weapon of offence or any article likely to cause annoyance to the public for example skulls
A writ petition was filed in the High Court for a direction on the respondents not to impose such restraints on the followers of Ananda Marga
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
The respondent No 1 made a similar order on March 29 1982
An application for permission to take out a procession in the public streets by the followers of Ananda Marga accompanied with Tandava dance was rejected
The petitioner filed writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondent No 1 and the State to allow procession to be carried in the public streets and meetings to be held in public places by the followers of the Ananda Marga accompanied by the performance of Tandava dance within the State of West Bengal
The petitioner submitted that Ananda Marga was a socio spiritual organisation dedicated to the service of humanity in different spheres of life such as physical mental and spiritual irrespective of caste
creed or colour one of the prescriptions of the religious rites to be 448 performed by an Ananda Margi was Tandava dance which was to be performed with a skull a small symbolic knife a trishul and a damroo and at intervals processions were intended to be taken out in public places accompanied by the Tandava Dance as a religious practice
The petitioner contended that Tandava Dance was an essential part of the religious rites of Ananda Margis and that they were entitled to practice the same both in private as also in public places and interference by the respondent was opposed to the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution
The petitioner also contended that repetitive orders under s144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not contemplated by the Code and therefore making of such orders was an abuse of the law and should not be countenanced
Dismissing the writ petitions  HELD The Ananda Marga is not a separate religion by itself
Therefore application of article 25 of the Constitution is not attracted
The petitioner asserted that Ananda Marga was not an institutionalised religion but was a religious denomination
The writings of the founder of the Ananda Marga are essentially founded upon the essence of the Hindu philosophy
The test indicated in  and the admission in para 17 of the writ petition that Ananda Margis belong to the Shaivite order lead to the clear conclusion that Ananda Margis belong to the Hindu religion
455 E456 C Sastri Yagnapurushadji  Ors
vs Muldas Bhudar das Vaishya  Anr   referred to
The words religious denomination  in article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word religion  and if this be so the expression religious denomination  must also satisfy three conditions 1 It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being that is a common faith 2 common organisation and 3 designation by a distinctive name
In the instant case Ananda Marga appears to satisfy all the three conditions
Ananda Marga therefore can be appropriately treated as a religious denomination within the Hindu religion
456 G 457 C The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar or Sri Shirur Mutt  at 1021 The Durgah Committee Ajmer  Anr
vs Syed Hussain Ali  Ors   and SP Mittal etc
vs Union of India  Ors
  at 774 referred to
449 Article 26 of the Constitution provides that subject to public order morality and health every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
Courts have the power to determine whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by the tenets of a particular religion
457 C D 458 H Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs The State of Bombay  Ors 1954 SCR 1055 and Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs The State of Rajasthan  Ors 1964 1 SCR 561 referred to
In the instant case the Tandva dance was not accepted as an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis when in 1955 the Ananda Marga order was first established
It is the specific case of the petitioner that Shri Ananda Murti founder of Ananda Marga introduced Tandva as a part of religious rites of Ananda Margis later in 1966
Ananda Marga as a religious order is of recent origin and Tandva dance as a part of religious rites of that order is still more recent
It is doubtful as to whether in such circumstances Tandva dance can be taken as an essential religious rite of the Ananda Margis
Even conceding that Tandva dance has been prescribed as a religious rite for every follower of the Ananda Marga it does not follow as a necessary corollary that Tandava dance to be performed in the public in a religious procession is a matter of religious rite
In fact there is no justification in any of the writings of Shri Ananda Murti that Tandava dance must be performed in public
Therefore performance of Tandava dance in procession in the public streets or in gatherings in public places is not an essential religious rite of the followers of the Ananda Marga
Thus the Claim that the petitioner has a fundamental right within the meaning of articles 25 or 26 to perform Tandava dance in public streets and public places has to be rejected
459 E 460 E An order made under s144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to meet an emergent situation
The order is not intended to be either permanent or semi permanent in character
The order is to remain valid for two months from the date of its making as provided in sub s4 of s144
The proviso to sub s4 of s144 which gives the State Government jurisdiction to extend the prohibitory order for a maximum period of six months beyond the life of the order made by the Magistrate is clearly indicative of the position that Parliament never intended the life of the order under s144 of the Code to remain in force beyond two months when made by a Magistrate
The scheme of that section does not contemplate repetitive orders and in case the situation so warrants steps have to be taken under other provisions of the law such as s107 or s145 of the Code when individual disputes are raised and to meet a situation such as in this case there are provisions to be found in the Police Act
If repetitive orders are made it would clearly amount to abuse of the power conferred by s144 of the Code
461 D 462 D Gopi Mohun Mullick vs Taramoni Chowdhrani ILR 5 Cal 7 Bishessur Chuckerbutty  Anr
vs Emperor AIR 1916 Cal
47 Swaminatha Mudaliar vs Gopalakrishna Naidu AIR  Taturam sahu vs The State of Orissa AIR 1953 Orissa 96 Ram Das Gaur vs The City Magistrate Varanasi 450 AIR 1960 All 397 and Ram Narain Sah  Anr
vs Parmeshwar Prasad Sah  Ors AIR 1942 Pat
414 approved
Babulal Parate vs State of Maharashtra  Ors  at 437 and Gulam Abbas  Ors
vs State of UP  Ors
1981 at 1862 referred to