Division Bench’s Judgment Can’t Be Nullified By Single Bench: Madras High Court Temporarily Bans Practice Of ‘Angapradakshinam’ Till Apex Court Decides
The Madras High Court partly allowed Writ Appeals against the Single Bench's Judgment by which an earlier Judgment of a Division Bench was nullified and thereby the ritual of ‘Annadhanam’ and ‘Angapradakshinam were allowed.
The Madras High Court has temporarily barred ‘Angapradakshinam’ i.e., a practice of rolling over on the left over plaintain leaves after partaking the meals at Nerur, Karur District.
The Madurai Bench observed that the Judgment of the Division Bench cannot be nullified by a Single Bench.
The Court partly allowed Writ Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Single Bench by which an earlier Judgment of a Division Bench was nullified and thereby the ritual of ‘Annadhanam’ and ‘Angapradakshinam were allowed. It was held in the impugned Judgment that no private individual can prevent any devotee from exercising his right to religion or any other fundamental right and if the right to privacy includes sexual orientation, it includes spiritual orientation as well.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, “… since the Division Bench Judgment made in W.P.(MD).No.7068 of 2015, dated 28.04.2015 in the matter of V.Dalit Pandiyan v. Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and others, has already attained the finality and being the Judgment of a higher forum of the High Court (Division Bench), the same since cannot be nullified by a lesser forum (single Bench), the decision that has been made in that regard by the writ court through the impugned order cannot be approved by this Court.”
The Bench also held, "This basic judicial discipline have to be strictly maintained, as without which, among the judicial fraternity no uniformity of decision can be possible, thereby it would give an alarming signal to the general litigant public who may raise doubt over the decision making process of the higher judicial forum."
The Bench said that such a practice, whether would go against the public morality or Constitutional morality is a matter to be gone into, which, cannot be decided by the High Court in view of the issue in a similar lis arising out of the Karnataka High Court having been seized off and pending with an Order of stay before the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocates N.R. Elango and C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar appeared for the Appellants while Senior Advocates G. Rajagopalan, Dama Seshadri Naidu, K.PS. Palanivel Rajan, and APP T. Senthil Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
A Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent herein, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the authorities i.e., the Appellants herein to consider the representation of him and grant permission to conduct ‘Annadhanam’ and ‘Angapradakshinam’, i.e., rolling over the plantain leaves left by the devotees after the Annadhanam (offering of food) , i.e., on the eve of Jeeva Samadhi day of Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral situated at Nerur Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District. The Samadhi Day fell on May 18, 2024, and his formal representation did not elicit any response, hence he approached the High Court.
The Single Bench had nullified an earlier Order passed by the Division Bench in a Writ Petition praying for directions to the authorities to protect the right to dignified life by stopping the inhuman practice of rolling over on used plantain leaves left by brahmins after their meal, all over the State of Tamil Nadu. Challenging the Single Bench’s Order, the authorities were before the Division Bench again.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “It has been held time and again that a single Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound to accept as correct the Judgments of Courts of coordinate jurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the Full Benches of the Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
The Court remarked that it is for the State to take a decision as to which are all the actions which could offend the public morality and as there has been no specific scale or yardstick available, normally the Court will be very slow in declaring any act which is claimed to be a religious act or practice or custom, as either offending the public morality or not.
“These kind of rituals or customary practices which are performed for more than 100 years or several 100 years cannot be said to be more awful act of some group of people. … Going further on the word Angapradakshinam which means rolling over, such kind of religious practice of Angapradakshinam is one of the accepted religious practice in Hindu religion. In many temples, we use to witness that such kind of Angapradakshinam is taken place almost as an every day affair”, it further noted.
The Court observed that such a practice of rolling over may not offend directly the public Order and insofar as the morality is concerned, what is the yardstick for morality also since has not been finally concluded or found out, in the name of morality whether such practice can be restricted is also a question; but at the same time, on the ground of health, such kind of restrictions could be made by the State on any such practice claimed to be the freedom of conscience or free profession or practice or propagation of religion.
“Here in the case in hand, the practice of rolling over on plantain leaves after partaking the meals, whether would be a health hazard is also the question to be answered, where we do not find any materials placed before us to establish that, such kind of practice would lead to severe health hazard of the people who involved in such practice and also the people who have connections with those devotees who have completed such practice of rolling over on the leaves after partaking the meals”, it added.
The Court, therefore, refused to conclude that such a practice would lead to a health hazard. It, however, said that whether the same would lead to any discrimination among the citizens is the large question which has to be answered.
“Exclusionary practices are contrary to Constitutional morality. … the Constitutional morality is concerned, whether a particular practice, claimed to be a religious practice or custom can be continued or prohibited on the ground of morality cannot be decided within the meaning of water type compartment”, it also remarked.
Moreover, the Court took note of the fact that the Apex Court in a similar case has seized of the same and granted stay of such a practice being followed since 500 years more in a temple called Kukke Subramanya Temple at Dakshina Kannada District in the Karnataka State.
Jurisdiction Of Single Bench
On the question of the Single Bench's power to declare a decision of the Larger Bench, (Division Bench) as a nullity, the High Court observed that the Single Bench cannot assume the jurisdiction to declare a Division Bench Judgment consisting of two Judges a nullity.
“Even though the reason has been stated as if the Division bench has passed order without joining the necessary party, therefore for non-joinder of necessary party that can be nullified and also for the reason that, the Division Bench has not given proper opportunity to the affected parties, thereby it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice and moreover the Judgment was rendered on the basis of misrepresentation which amounts to fraud, therefore for all these reasons, the Division Bench Judgment is to be declared as nullity and on that score, whether the single Bench can assume the jurisdiction to declare such a Division Bench Judgment as a nullity one”, it elucidated.
Furthermore, the Court held that the Division Bench's Judgment cannot be doubted by the Single bench and even if it is doubted, the Single Bench at the most can refer the matter for a larger one, i.e., the Full Bench.
The Court added that assuming the jurisdiction and to declare such a Division Bench Judgment on the same issue as a nullity, one cannot be approved under the scrutiny of law by taking into account of the celebrity principle of judicial discipline by following the judicial precedents.
“Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to hold that, the approach and conclusion reached by the writ court in allowing the said writ petition by declaring the Division Bench Judgment, dated 28.04.2015 as a nullity one is absolutely unlawful and unjustifiable, therefore the Judgment impugned is liable to be set aside”, it observed.
Conclusion
The Court, therefore, concluded the following points –
• The practice of rolling over on the left over plantain leaves after partaking the meals at Nerur Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral Samathi/Temple or in that locality at Karur District may be a religious practice or the practice of a particular religious denomination which may not hit either under public order or health within the meaning of Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Such a practice, whether would go against the public morality or Constitutional morality is a matter to be gone into, which, cannot be decided by the High Court in view of the issue in a similar lis arising out of the Karnataka High Court having been seized off and pending with an Order of stay before the Supreme Court of India.
• Since the Division Bench Judgment has already attained the finality and being the Judgment of the High Court (Division Bench), the same since cannot be nullified by a Single Bench.
• Parties can await the ultimate decision to be rendered by the Supreme Court in the pending Appeal and till such time, the practice of rolling over on the left over plantain leaves after partaking the meals at Nerur, Karur District shall not be permitted by the State and District Administration.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Appeals to the above extent.
Cause Title- The District Collector & Ors. v. P. Naveen Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:675)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates N.R. Elango, C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Government Pleader P. Thilak Kumar, and Advocate S. Vanchinathan.
Respondents: Senior Advocates G. Rajagopalan, Dama Seshadri Naidu, K.PS. Palanivel Rajan, APP T. Senthil Kumar, Advocates G. Thalaimutharasu, K. Suresh, R. Narayanan, and S. Madhavan.
