1982 (11) TMI 169 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 upheld, not violating Constitution.

SP. MITTAL ETC. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

SP. MITTAL ETC. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 1983 AIR 1, 1983 (1) SCC 51, 1983 (1) SCR 729 Issues Involved:1. Definition and Scope of Religion and Religious Denomination2. Legislative Competence of Parliament3. Violation of Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution5. Allegation of Mala FidesDetailed Analysis:1. Definition and Scope of Religion and Religious DenominationThe judgment explores the complex nature of defining 'religion' and 'religious denomination.' The court acknowledges that religion is a term that is 'hardly susceptible of any rigid definition.' It is described as a system of beliefs or doctrines conducive to spiritual well-being, which may include rituals and observances. The court refers to previous judgments, such as the Shirur Mutt case, to highlight that religion extends beyond mere beliefs to include practices. The court also defines a 'religious denomination' as a group with a common faith and organization, designated by a distinctive name.2. Legislative Competence of ParliamentThe petitioners argued that the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980, falls under Entry 32 of List II (State List), making it beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. The court, however, concluded that the Act does not pertain to the incorporation, regulation, or winding up of a corporation but rather to the management of Auroville, which is a secular activity. The court held that even if the subject matter is not covered by any specific entry in List I or List III, it would fall under the residuary entry 97 of List I, thereby affirming Parliament's legislative competence.3. Violation of Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the ConstitutionThe petitioners contended that the Act violated their rights under Articles 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (protection of interests of minorities), and 30 (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions). The court examined the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and concluded that they do not constitute a religion but rather a philosophy. Therefore, neither the Society nor Auroville could be considered a religious denomination. Even if they were, the Act did not interfere with religious practices but only took over the management of Auroville, a secular activity.4. Violation of Article 14 of the ConstitutionThe petitioners argued that the Act was discriminatory and violated Article 14, as it singled out Sri Aurobindo Society for hostile treatment. The court held that the unique circumstances surrounding Auroville, including substantial government grants and international involvement, justified treating it as a class by itself. The court referred to previous judgments that allow for reasonable classification and concluded that the Act did not violate Article 14.5. Allegation of Mala FidesThe petitioners alleged that the Act was passed with mala fide intentions, influenced by individuals with personal grievances. The court rejected this argument, stating that allegations of mala fides are easier to make than prove. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the Act was passed at the behest of any individual with ulterior motives.ConclusionThe court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980, and concluding that it did not violate Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the Act was a necessary intervention to ensure the proper management of Auroville, a secular cultural township with significant national and international importance.