The Madras High Court has firmly held that State authorities cannot take action based on superstition, irrational fears or unscientific beliefs, emphasising that government officials must uphold constitutional principles rather than give in to public misconceptions. This ruling came in a case where local authorities in Chennai had removed religious idols from a private residence after some neighbours claimed that a series of “unnatural deaths” in the locality were somehow connected to the installation and worship of those idols. The petitioner, who had installed the idols of Hindu deities including Sivasakthi Dhakshiswari, Vinayagar and Veerabhadran in his own home and conducted worship there, challenged the removal of these idols. The High Court, presided over by Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, rejected the justification offered by the authorities and observed that peaceful private worship in one’s own premises cannot be disrupted due to unfounded fears or superstitious beliefs. The Court noted that if a person wishes to worship an idol on his property, either privately or with willing neighbours, neither the public nor State authorities should take law into their own hands based on majority sentiment or irrational fears. It underscored that “God or an idol will never harm any human being,” and that such notions are superstitions devoid of any basis in religious devotion or scientific understanding. The Court’s order drew attention to the constitutional obligation to foster scientific temper and prevent the State from succumbing to baseless beliefs when making administrative decisions.
In its earlier order, the High Court had expressly held that the action of removing the idols was “neither supported by law nor by any principle of religious devotion or science,” and directed that the idols be returned to the petitioner, subject to reasonable conditions aimed at preventing disturbance to neighbours. These conditions included restrictions on the use of loudspeakers, avoidance of noise pollution and ensuring that no unauthorised collection of money occurred in the course of worship. Following this direction, the petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the authorities had failed to comply with the Court’s order to return the idols, and he also brought to the Court’s attention that local residents were threatening violence and damage to his property should the idols be reinstalled, necessitating an order for police protection. In response, the State argued that the petitioner had only permission to construct a residential house and had unlawfully converted it into a place of worship, and that rituals conducted at odd hours were disturbing the locality. The High Court noted that the idols admittedly belonged to the petitioner and ordered their immediate restoration, directing him to collect them from the local revenue office. It also clarified that any issues relating to unauthorised construction could be dealt with independently in accordance with law.
The Court reiterated that while a person’s right to worship peacefully at his private residence is protected, such worship must not disrupt public peace or violate local regulations. It cautioned against governance or administrative action that is driven by superstition, warning that neither the public nor officials should act on unfounded beliefs or irrational fears. The authorities were reminded that they are at liberty to address legitimate concerns such as noise pollution or structural violations through appropriate legal procedures, but not on the basis of superstitious misconceptions. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s stance that constitutional freedoms — including the freedom of religion and the right to peacefully worship — cannot be curtailed by administrative actions rooted in superstition or collective panic without any legal basis. The Madras High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the State must act on law and reason, and not on irrational beliefs, when dealing with citizens’ fundamental rights and private religious practices.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.