Madras High Court's Deliberation on 'Angapradakshinam': Balancing Religious Practices and Constitutional Morality

The Madras High Court recently revisited the contentious ritual of 'Angapradakshinam', where devotees roll over plantain leaves used by others for consuming food. This practice, observed at the final resting place of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral in Nerur Village, Tamil Nadu, has been a subject of legal scrutiny, reflecting the intricate balance between religious customs and constitutional principles.

Historical Context and Legal Challenges

For over a century, 'Angapradakshinam' has been integral to the 'Jeeva Samadhi Day' celebrations of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral, a revered saint in Tamil Nadu. Devotees believe that performing this ritual confers spiritual benefits. However, in 2015, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court intervened, halting the practice. The court expressed concerns that such rituals might affect human dignity and violate constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee equality and the right to life, respectively. The Bench emphasized that no individual should be subjected to practices that could be perceived as degrading, even if undertaken voluntarily in the name of religion.

Revival of the Practice: Single Judge's Perspective

In May 2024, Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench revisited the issue. He allowed the resumption of 'Angapradakshinam', invoking Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which ensures the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. Justice Swaminathan linked the devotees' belief in the spiritual benefits of the ritual to the right to privacy, a fundamental right under Article 21. He argued that if the right to privacy encompasses aspects like gender and sexual orientation, it should also include spiritual orientation. He stated, "It is open to a person to express this (spiritual) orientation in the manner he deems fit. Of course, it should not affect the rights and freedoms belonging to others."

Justice Swaminathan also highlighted that the earlier 2015 order suffered from procedural lapses, notably the non-inclusion of necessary parties such as the devotees and trustees of the Adhistanam. He emphasized that these stakeholders were neither made parties nor heard, leading to a breach of natural justice principles. Furthermore, he observed that the practice promoted communal harmony, as devotees from all communities participated, thereby fostering social integration.

Division Bench's Reassessment and Stay

The revival of the ritual by the single judge did not conclude the legal discourse. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan, revisited the matter. They set aside the single judge's order, emphasizing the need to consider whether such practices align with public morality and constitutional principles. The Bench noted that a similar issue from Karnataka was pending before the Supreme Court, where a stay had been granted on a comparable ritual at the Kukke Subramanya temple. The Bench opined that determining the constitutionality and moral implications of 'Angapradakshinam' should await the Supreme Court's guidance on the matter.

Balancing Religious Freedom and Constitutional Morality

This legal journey underscores the complex interplay between preserving religious traditions and upholding constitutional values. While Article 25 guarantees the freedom of religion, this right is subject to public order, morality, and health considerations. The courts face the challenging task of ensuring that religious practices do not infringe upon individual dignity or contravene constitutional mandates. The differing judicial perspectives in this case highlight the nuanced debate on where to draw the line between respecting cultural rituals and enforcing constitutional norms.

Awaiting Supreme Court's Verdict

With the Supreme Court seized of a similar matter, the final word on the permissibility of 'Angapradakshinam' and analogous rituals remains pending. The apex court's forthcoming decision is anticipated to provide clarity on the extent to which religious practices can be accommodated within the framework of constitutional morality, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of tradition and fundamental rights.