Essential religious practice doctrine limits public Tandava claims and bars repetitive preventive orders under emergency law.

Constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends only to essential religious practices, and public performance of Tandava dance was not established as an essential rite of Ananda Marga because the practice was shown to be of recent origin and unsupported by any authoritative text or tenet; the claimed religious right to perform it in public processions or public places was therefore rejected. Section 144 CrPC is a temporary emergency preventive power limited by statute, and successive orders in the same terms after expiry of earlier orders are not permissible; repetitive use of that power was therefore disapproved as an abuse of the provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Tandava dance in public processions or public places was an essential religious rite of the followers of Ananda Marga protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether successive and repetitive orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were legally permissible.

Issue (i): Whether Tandava dance in public processions or public places was an essential religious rite of the followers of Ananda Marga protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The religious claim was examined on the footing that Ananda Marga was a religious denomination within the Hindu fold, but the material placed before the Court did not establish that public performance of Tandava dance was an essential part of its religious observance. The evidence showed that the practice was of recent origin and that no authoritative text or tenet required its performance in public streets or public gatherings. The constitutional protection of religion extends only to essential religious practices, and once the public performance of Tandava was found not to be such a practice, the claimed right under Articles 25 and 26 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The claimed right to perform Tandava dance in public processions and public places was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether successive and repetitive orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were legally permissible.

Analysis: Section 144 is an emergency preventive power intended for immediate prevention or speedy remedy, and its duration is limited by the statute. The statutory scheme contemplates a temporary order and does not authorise the making of successive orders in the same terms after earlier orders have expired by efflux of time. Repetitive orders of this nature amount to an abuse of the power conferred by the provision, though the impugned order had ceased to operate by the time of decision.

Conclusion: Successive repetitive orders under section 144 were held to be impermissible in law.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed because the asserted public performance of Tandava was not established as an essential religious rite, and the Court also disapproved the practice of issuing repetitive preventive orders under section 144 beyond the statutory limit.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional protection of religion covers only essential religious practices, and a preventive order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a temporary emergency measure that cannot be renewed successively in the same terms beyond the statutory duration.

---