Dravidar Kazhakam, Represented by the General Secretary, K. Veeramani Vs. the Chairman, United India Insurance Company Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderraju, j.1. the above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to forbear from printing and despatching the greeting cards containing his religious faith to coincide with him by utilising the funds of the respondent corporation. 2. the petitioner by name dravidar kazhagam, represented by its general secretary, claims that it has been in existence, since 1925, that it was in the front of fighting against superstitions and social justice and strives to make the indian republic a true secular republic as enshrined in the preamble to the constitution of india. it also claims, to have fought always zealously any move by the state or any of its agencies from deviating from he path of secularism said to be the bedrock and basic fabric of the constitution.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Raju, J.

1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to forbear from printing and despatching the Greeting cards containing his religious faith to coincide with him by utilising the funds of the respondent Corporation.

2. The petitioner by name Dravidar Kazhagam, represented by its General Secretary, claims that it has been in existence, since 1925, that it was in the front of fighting against superstitions and social justice and strives to make the Indian Republic a true secular Republic as enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of India. It also claims, to have fought always zealously any move by the State or any of its agencies from deviating from he path of secularism said to be the bedrock and basic fabric of the Constitution of India. The country is said to consist of people having faith in many religions are religious practices as well as rationalistic concept of human life and scientific pursuit of knowledge of nature. While referring to Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India, it is stated that the members of the Constituent Assembly thought fit to not only secure to the citizen equality before the law bat also equal protection of the law and freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. The State cannot it is said to take sides and spend money or use its machinery in the propagation of a particular religion.

3. The petitioner also contends that the respondent is one of the subsidiary Corporations owned by the General Insurance Corporation created under Central Act 57 of 1972, that the business is a fully nationalised one, that the Corporation is designed to serve the needs of the economy in the larger interests of the community and that though it is presided over by the Chairman, he has to act only within limits and cannot arbitrarily or whimsically act, being 'Stale' within the meaning of Articles 12 of the Constitution of India. The Chairman of the respondent one Shri K.C. Ponnappa is stated to have from and out of the funds of the respondent-Corporation, been sending various Greetingcards on various religious occasions' and as one professing Hindu religion he is stated to have not lost the opportunity of sending Greeting cards to various people on important Hindu Religions festivals. Though according to the petitioner there could be no objection to an individual sending Greeting cards on such occasions, exception is taken for using the funds of the State' for the purpose of doing non-secular activities. Reference is made to a multicolour Greeting card sent on the occasion of Deepavali under the signature of the Chairman, by using the funds as well as the labour force of the Corporation and according to the petitioner about 5,000 cards involving an expenditure of Rs. 25,000 would appear to have been sent.

4. Coming to the contents of the said Greeting card as found in the card filed into this Court by the petitioner, it is useful to refer to the same in detail before even referring to the contentions of petitioner, in respect thereof. The Greeting card comprises four pages. The first page of it is multicoloured with a design symbolic of 'The Sun' carrying in the middle portion the syllable representing 'AUM', with letters 'A Prayer for Deepa-vali' at the top of page and at the bottom corner, the letters 'Deepavali Greetings'. The last and fourth page carries the emblem of the respondent Corporation, the name and its address. On page two, Gayatri mantra is printed as hereunder:

'Gayatri Mantra' (Sanskrit)

(Sanskrit Script omitted)

Om

Bhurbhuvassuvaha

Tatsavitur varenyam

Bhargo Devasya Dheemahi

Dhiyoyonah Prachodayat

This mantra should be chanted at least S times thrice a day at dawn, at noon, and at dusk facing the Sun. We remember the five lines of the Mantra as above, and when chanting we chant each line separately with a pause before the next line.

On page three the following printed matter appears:

Here are two interesting English translations of Gayatri mantra.

1. Translation by Sir William Jones in 1817 'Let us adore the supremacy of that divine Sun, the God-head who illuminates all, who re-creates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright in our progress towards His holy seat.'

2. I meditate on the divine effulgence of my adorable Lord, who is known as 'om' the transcendental one, who is the propeller and sustainer of the three Worlds, who is to be sought after, worshipped and realised. May He enlighten our intellect and bless us with wisdom, (signed) Best Wishes from K.C. Ponnappa.

5. The petitioner also contends that the Gayatri mantra is chanted only by the Brahmins who constitute very insignificant portion of the Hindu religious order, that even otherwise there cannot be any open propagation of the religious preaching's of a particular religion at the cost of funds of the State', that the policy-holders of this nationalised insurance business and its employees belong to other religious faiths too and the action of the Chairman of the respondent-Corporation is not only arbitrary, unconstitutional and the respondent has to be restrained from indulging in such actions in order to protect the secular stance of the State and also to preserve the Republication Constitution. It is also contended that the very object of nationalisation of insurance will be defeated if such things are allowed to happen.

6 The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, under whose name the Greetings in question have been sent has himself filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent-company is a subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India formed under Section 9 of the General Insurance of Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, that as per Section l9(3) of the Central Act 67 of 1972, that company shall, in the discharge of any of its functions, act so far as may be on the business principles, that it has been the practice in the respondent Corporation to send Greeting cards to valued customers on the occasion of Deepavali, Christmas, New Year, etc., and thatkeeping in line with the said usage, the Greeting card in question was senton the occasion of the Deepavali festival in 1983. It is also claimed that Greeting cards sent on festive occasions earn goodwill for the Corporation, that it is also a good medium of advertisement and no violation of any provision of the Constitution of India or of any law was involved in it. While admitting that the deponent is a Hindu, he states that hailing from Mercara (Coorg) the Coorgis neither celebrate Deepavali nor permit Brahmin priests to officiate in any of their ceremonies like birth, marriage and death, that he had no particular affinity for Deepavali, that being a joyous and festive occasion for large section of the people of the country, the greetings were sent to some of the valued customers in the larger and business interests of the respondent Corporation and that too in his capacity as Chairman and not in his individual capacityand that the number of cards printed were 2,000 at a cost of Rs. 11,920.75, that though a nationalised business, the respondent Corporation has to compete with other subsidiary companies and that is why the adoption of business norms, standards (sic) have been permitted. The respondent also states that there is no violation of any provision of the Constitution of India or any other law and that no particular reference has been made in the affidavit regarding any such violation of any provision.

7. So far as the Gayatri mantra is concerned in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as hereunder:

8. The averments in paragraph 6 are incorrect and untenable. It is denied that the Gayatri . mantra is chanted only by Brahmins. In any event, that is irrelevant to a decision in this writ petition. It is denied that the sending of the Greeting cards on the occasion of Deepavali (amounts?) to 'open propagation of the religious preachings of a particular religion.

8. Mr. K. Chandru, learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions in the affidavit referred to three decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The first of the said decisions is reported in Arch R. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, and it concerned the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which made the First Amendment applicable to the States. The Court held that neither a State nor the Federal Government can openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organisation or groups and vice versa and that no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practise religion. In Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, the issue was as to whether the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment was violated by a Pennsylvania Statute or a rule of the Board of Schools requiring the reading without comment at the opening of each school day of verses from the Bible and the recitation of the Lord's prayer by the students in unison. While dealing with the scope of the First Amendment which commands the government to maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion, it was observed that State's financing even in a minor degree a church either in its strict religious activities or in other activities violated the establishment clause. The test to determine the question of alleged violation was considered to be the purpose and primary effect of the act complained of. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 902, the issue was as to whether the religion clauses of the First Amendment were violated by the State statutes providing State aid to Church related elementary and secondary schools and to teachers therein with regard to instruction in secular matters. On applying the test of principal or primary effect the Court expressed the view that even secular instruction in parochial school was an integral part of religious instruction and, therefore, violated the establishment clause. The learned Counsel for the respondent reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and contended that the writ petition is liable to be rejected and it does not involve any just or legal grievance.

9. What does the word 'secular' or 'religion' mean? Secularism does not mean irreligion or anything anti-religious. To say so is negative secularism and neither positive nor constructive meaning of the same, Secularism merely implies 'sarva dharma sambhava', that is; a believer in secularism while remaining an ardent follower of his own religion looks upon all other religions as different path, ways to the same goal-God. Thus, in substance; it is only a modern term for the old phrase 'religious tolerance' or 'sarvamatha sammathee'. So far as the 'State' is concerned, it implies that our State does not identify itself with any particular Religion. The debates in the Constituent Assembly show that 'what was intended by the Constitution was not the secularisation of the State in the sense of its complete dissociation from religion but rather an attitude of religious neutrality, with equal treatment to all religions and religious minorities.' The contention of the petitioner proceeds upon an assumption that secularism means that the State must not associate itself with religion at all and must have nothing to do with it. The concept of American or Western Secularism - that State should have nothing to do with religion at all and there should be a total non-association owes itself to the peculiar historical reasons of those nations and the renaissance in religion in the form of a fight against the authoritarianism of the Church transcending even political boundaries. Ours is a land of Thyaga, Punya, Yoga, Sathya and Gnana with great heights and level of philosophical achievements and we have to us a modern India-with a hoary and glorious, cultural and spiritual heritage of ancient India which preach, teach and help to practise the righteous way of living. They evolve a moral, healthy and peaceful code of conduct. Neither the founding fathers of our Constitution of India nor any of the provisions enshrined in the said document could be imputed with having done away with the philosophical and spiritual ideologies and high values of life which is the core of the Indian polity and culture. Religion is also not theistic and Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in the existence of God or of any intelligent first cause. Religion and religious faith are not one and the same, Religious instruction has been construed to mean that which is imparted for inculcating the tenets, the rituals, the observances, ceremonies and modes of worship of a particular sect or denomination.

10. The Gayatri mantra is said to be 'Shabda Brahmam' and is said to appear in the Rig Veda,' as the tenth mantra in the sixtieth sutra of the third mandala. It is considered to be all pervasive, synonymous with divinity and valued as an universal prayer which does not ask for any mercy or pardon but seeks for a clear intellect so that truth may be reflected therein without distortion. It, therefore, is supposed to purify, rescue or protect the chanter who contemplates the glory of light that illuminates the three Worlds or the regions of experience as they are called, with a prayer for final liberation through the awakening of the innate intelligence that pervades the universe as light. As one having its origin in Vedas and Vedic times, it will be anachronistic for anyone to contend that it signifies or relates to any particular religioa Gayatri mantra is the key to Vedic wisdom. The Vedas have been in existence long before any of the present day organised religions came into being. They do not preach any religion nor are concerned with propagating religion. The Vedas have been always considered to belong to all mankind and are not limited to any one particular religion, race, caste or community. Consequently, the Vedic mantras were supposed to have existed long before even any of the present languages were evolved. Because it is held to be 'Brahmam' its existence is said to precede even 'mind or intelligence' and any attempt by one to try to explain the infinite 'Shabda Brahmam' through our present day limited words would be like trying to measure outer space by means of a yardstick or gauge the depth of an ocean with a foot long dipstick. Vedas have very vast, profound and deep mystic meanings and since the common man cannot understand in those days the intricate meanings and practises the teachings of the Vedas subisdary lit erature have been created to drive home the principles to such people, keeping in view the mental awareness, living conditions and also depending upon the intuitive knowledge and capacities of the exponents. Various scholars, spiritual aspirants and leaders as well as historians have interpolated their own ideas into interpretation of these ancient texts and mantras and such dissertations, enunciation and exposition could not be used to undermine the universality of those mantras or the indisputable position that they were above all religions and as a matter of fact were not only of pre-historic, but pre-religious origin. Therefore, the assumption or apprehension on behalf of the petitioner that the Gayatri mantra is a religions tenet, teaching or practice of a particular religion of modern concept or the privilege of a community is basically fallacious. Equally baseless is the claim that only Brahmins chant or can chant the Gayatri mantra. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Gayatri mantra is the exclusive privilege or property of any class or race or community and even ancient texts and scriptures will belie such blasphemous claims, if any, of any vested interests. Referring to Vedas, Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba would declare 'The Vedic literature is the most ancient in the World. It is the birth place for human culture and the basis for all kinds of powers. All branches of learning have their origin in the Veda. All dharmas and virtues having sprung from the Veda, the Veda is endless, unfathomable, indefinable and blissful. The word 'Veda' is derived from the Sanskrit root 'Vid' - meaning knowledge or Jnana -both Iswara and Atma. Veda is Vijnana - knowledge par excellence. It does not pertain to one individual, one place or time. It is universal. 'Great ascetics, saints and philosophers of World repute who stood above the barriers of religion have commended the recitation and chanting of the Gayatri mantra. The famous Scientist. J.B.S. Haldane has once written that 'the Gayatri mantra should be carved on the doors of every laboratory in the World'. Thus, Vedas constitute Indian mysticism, the perennial philosophy of spirituality and a practical guide for human conduct and have their aim to make the man divine. It is, therefore, they were called 'science of sciences' and extolled all over the World that they do not belong to India or to any one or other country, or even to any one religion, but belong to all mankind as the voice of God - Truth or Sathya.

11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the use of the words 'three Worlds' in the matter printed at page three submitted that it is a concept peculiar to Hindu religion. lam afraid that I cannot accept such a plea. The Hindu mythology which is an integral part of the Hindu religion refers to even fourteen Worlds. Seeking inspiration, for substantiating the challenge made by the petitioner from such words is nothing but revelling in self-serving assumptions. Vedic language as well as the expressions of ascetics and mystics were full of multi-semantic words, and meanings of those were grasped by each depending upon their own depth or maturity of understanding. One of the great philosophers and ascetics of modern times Sri Aurobindo, while explaining some of those mysteries in language would refer to some of them and state that 'rice' meant the surrender of the physical, 'ghee' meant the clarified consciousness and 'soma' meant Anandha. Vedas do not propagate any God outside but carry the fundamental message, 'that thou art' - Tat twam asi', God being within man as himself. The 'three Worlds; have had divine disclosure to mean three levels of space Akasa in man of which two are drsya, the dark being the third. The first comprises the earth, the solar system, the billions of other heavenly phenomena reaching out to stars whose light, though emanated, has not yet reached this globe. This space is named bhootha akasa. The second level subsumes the first and retains it in a miniature form. It comprises the area cognised and imagined by the mind and is, therefore, named Chittha akasa. Even this area is a dot when compared to the space Akasa enfolded by the Atma, named Chidakasa. The two other spaces are but tiny fragments to the seer, the Atma, the Brahman. The human being has this journey, towards the Ananda that Chidakasa can offer, as the precious prerogative. The journey does not lead outward; it has to be inward, towards one's own reality. Consequently, a close scrutiny of the contents of the Greeting card issued in the case on hand, in their proper perspective would, in my view, inevitably go to show that the same neither involves religious tenet nor constitute any teaching or propagation and preaching of any religion in the sense of undermining 'Secularism,' one of the avowed goals of our Constitution of India. The ratio of the American decisions which are peculiar to their Constitutional history and scope and object of the First Amendment to their Constitution cannot be of any relevance in the interpretation of the Constitution of India, and that too in respect of the issue under consideration. Even otherwise, by judging the issue in the light of purpose, primary and principal effect test propounded by the American cases, the Greeting cards sent with the avowed object of publicity and business propaganda in the larger business interests of the respondent-Corporation, cannot be said to be either an unconstitutional or unlawful move on the part of the respondent. That being the correct and real position, in my view, neither any provisions of the Constitution of India nor any other provision of law stood violated by the action of the respondent in sending the Greeting cards in question on the occasion of the Deepavali Festival.

12.That a part, in my view, the plea on behalf of the petitioner that the so called objectionable propagation has been made at the cost of the funds of the State, does not merit acceptance. The fact that the respondent Corporation may satisfy the definition of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or it indisputably is a statutory Corporation and its shares are owned by the State itself or is one controlled by the State would not render its funds the funds-of the State. The funds in question of the respondent Corporation would be its own funds-the said corporation having its own individuality apart from the Government as such, and also having been constituted as an autonomous body capable of acquiring holding and disposing of property. The claim to the contrary is in my view bereft of either reason or substance, and consequently, shall stand rejected. For all the reasons stated supra, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.