"This is a secular country:" Madras High Court rejects plea to bar CM MK Stalin from heading committee under Hindu Religious Endowments Act

This is a secular country and it is time that prejudice and vendetta is shed, particularly when it comes to practicing religion, the Madras High Court observed on Monday (S Sridharan v. Mr MK Stalin and 2 ors)..The Court made the observation while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that sought to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin from heading any advisory committee under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 unless he took a pledge before a Hindu god in a Hindu temple in the presence of two witnesses. .Section 7 (1)(a) of the Act lays down that the State's Chief Minister will be the ex officio Chairman of the Advisory Committee constituted under the Act. Appearing party-in-person, advocate S Sridharan raised concern that the present Chief Minister is a non-believer. .However, the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee did not entertain submissions for long before it expressed its strong disinclination to entertain the case, terming it utterly mischievous, in extreme bad taste and devoid of any public interest. ."There has to be a time when the prejudice and vendetta has to be shed particularly when it comes to practicing the religion. This is a secular country and secularism implies tolerance for the other religion. This country also provides for freedom of expression to its citizens which in turn implies lending a ear to the other point of view," the Court said in its order. .The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu proceeded to highlight that even the Constitution permits the oath of office to be taken either in the name of God or in the name of the Constitution of India. ."It does not appear that any religion preaches narrow mindedness or requires followers of another faith to be hurt or injured. The sentiment expressed in the petition cannot be appreciated in this day and age," the Court added. .While the petition was dismissed without any costs, the Court barred the petitioner from filing any PILs for a five year period without first obtaining permission from the relevant Bench. ."Though no costs are imposed on petitioner the petitioner will not be entitled to file any PILs for a period of five years from date without obtaining the previous permission from the relevant bench in such regard", the Court said. .[Read Order]