One should be tolerant towards other religious practises; our nation takes pride in its unity in diversity: Madras High Court
In a recent decision, the Madras High Court discussed the need of demonstrating tolerance for diverse religious beliefs. The matter was between Paulraj vs District Collector and others. (W.P(MD).No.11276 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.9856, 9857 and 9860 of 2020 and 15125 of 2021) and was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
A Hindu man filed a plea in the High Court contesting the Kanyakumari District Collector’s approval of the church’s construction after the petitioner claimed loudspeakers were being used day and night, causing a nuisance.
JUDGMENT:
The Court began its ruling by stating that “we the people” had decided to establish India as a Secular Republic in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution. Reference was made to Article 15(1), which states that the State is prohibited from discriminating against anybody based on things like religion, and Article 51A(e), which states that it is every citizen’s fundamental duty to advance peace and fraternity. The courts, which decide cases involving religion, are bound by the Fundamental Rights and Duties.
The Court found that the same residential area also housed a temple. In light of this, the Court discussed the necessity of preserving tolerance and the significance of the principle of “unity in difference.”
The District Collector may convey to the individual who built the church that it is wise to exercise restraint and that using loudspeakers may not be necessary for God to hear the prayers by himself or via his subordinates, the Court further stated.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ADITI PRIYADARSHI