- SOHINI BISWAS
Introduction
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess practice and propagate religion. Article 26 guarantees to all religious denominations; inter alia, the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. These rights may be exercised within the confines of one’s private space or with the participation of the public, subject to public order, morality and health.
To what extent can public participation in religious rituals/festivals be curtailed in the middle of a pandemic posing grave health concerns?
The solution seems to have moved from ‘partly’ to ‘absolutely.’
When the primary lockdown changed into introduced in March 2020, all public locations, such as locations of worship, have been strictly close down. The regulations have been partly eased in June but locations of worship remained in large part closed to the general public. Initially, the Supreme Court regarded to favor the (gradual) establishing up of locations of public worship, while additionally deferring to the information of the government in the matter. However, reeling under the havoc wreaked by the second one wave of COVID-19, and with reviews of a third wave across the corner, courts have now followed a completely careful method.
On June 18, 2020, listening to a petition for suspending the Rath Yatra scheduled to be held at Puri, the Supreme Court directed that there will be no Rath Yatra (nor any secular or spiritual sports related to it) everywhere in the temple metropolis of Odisha or in any other State in the year 2020. While doing so, the Court cited Article 25 being problem to fitness and discovered that round 10 to 12 lakh human beings are probable to accumulate for the Rath Yatra. Hence, it would be suitable to droop it ‘in the interests of public fitness and protection of residents who are devotees.’ However, after numerous applications for intervention and change of the order have been filed, 4 days later, the Court accepted the Rath Yatra to be conducted problem to compliance with situations concerning social distancing etc.
The Court cited that an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Odisha, pointing out that it is probably feasible to conduct the Rath Yatra “in a confined manner without public attendance” as proposed by the Chairman of the Puri Jagannath Temple Administration. The Court consequently reasoned, thereafter, in July, the Court declined to restrict access of the public, devotees and pilgrims to the yearly Amarnath Yatra for 2020, watching that the choice should be left to the competence of the local administration.
In the same month, the Supreme Court was seized of a Special Leave Petition filed against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court regarding the access of the overall public in Baidyanath Jyotirlinga Temple at Deoghar and Baba Basukinath Temple during the months of Shravan and Bhado. The High Court had directed ‘on line darshan’, while allowing the Temple trust to perform worship without permitting public participation. Partly modifying the instructions issued by the High Court, the Supreme Court determined that, "general limit on darshan by public is prima facie unreasonable," and that it have to were left to the discretion of the State authorities to allow ‘limited access of standard public’ maintaining social distancing. The Court then proceeded to request the State authorities to explore the possibility of regulated public darshan (as was being executed in case of another Jyotirlingam in Ujjain), not only for temples, but additionally other spiritual locations such as churches and mosques, observing, “The State cannot shirk from its duty to put into effect the social distancing norms, especially when there's establishing up of such locations throughout the world.”
As the wide variety of COVID-19 instances reduced, places of public worship step by step spread out with confined public access, and spiritual festivals additionally occurred throughout the country. However, after the second one wave hit round April 2021, the method of the Supreme Court absolutely changed. Several High Courts refused to permit any leeway in allowing confined public gatherings, and the understanding of the government was deferred to most effective while a complete prohibition was imposed.
On April 15, 2021, the Delhi High Court accepted access of 50 people into the Nizamuddin Markaz mosque at some point of Ramzan issue to the extant SOP, noting that there was no course to close places of worship for the public and no stand changed into taken by the authorities as to whether gatherings have been accepted in other locations of worship like temples, churches, etc. At the identical time, the Court cautioned that COVID-19 instances have been growing exponentially in Delhi and that care have to be taken that it does notaffect the health of the devotees or of the general public at huge. While listening to PILs concerning the State’s dealing with of the pandemic, the Uttarakhand High Court on April 28, 2021, orally remarked that the State had come to be a ‘laughing stock’ because of its organizing of the Kumbh Mela in the midst of a raging pandemic.
On June 23, 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court cited that “there's a clear co-relation among the keeping of Kumbh Mela in April, 2021, and the ensuing deaths which took place in Uttarakhand in May, 2021.” Taking under consideration the caution of a 3rd wave and the non-adherence of the public to precautionary SOPs, the High Court directed the State to study its choice to start the ‘Char Dham Yatra’ from July 1, 2021. Noting that the Amarnath Yatra had already been cancelled by the J&K Administration, the Court discovered that “a catastrophe like COVID-19 pandemic have to not be re-invited by preserving and allowing huge accumulating at spiritual shrines, and by allowing the Char Dham Yatra by the State Government.”
When the State determined to allow the Yatra ‘to the confined extent’ that citizens of certain districts could be accepted to go to temples in those districts, on June 28, the High Court stayed its choice but directed the authorities to make sure stay streaming of the spiritual ceremonies for the benefit of the public, rejecting the argument that our Shastras prohibited.
