Skip to main content

Right to Propagate Religion

Right to Propagate Religion

According to Article 25 imbibed in our Indian Constitution, ‘All persons are

equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice,

profess and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health’. If

we breakdown, it will be look like:

a) Freedom of Conscience.

b) Freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

c) Manage his own affairs in matters of religion.

The only thing which we have to keep in mind while following everything is

that public order, morality and health of the individual. All these rights are

subjected to this only and as long as we are satisfying all this we can do

whatever we want. In furtherance, Article 26 says that all denominations can

manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

This was a very important step taken after our country became independent

from the colonial rule in 1947. At that time, there were people from different

religions apart from Hindus like Sikhs of Punjab, Muslims and Christians. They

were the people who chose India as their own country over their religion

because at that time people were distributed according to their religion. This

showed that patriotism was way more important for them than their religion

which is an ascribed status. That is why after the 1947, India was known to be

as a secular country because people from every religion were present and there

was no distinction on basis of that in anything. When people realized this, they

also worked in this direction only and especially our constitution- makers who

made our constitution religion neutral. There is no distinction on basis of the

religion in any state or province. It treats everyone as equal and give all the

perks to all its citizens. There is no disregard in that.

After that many incidents took place where the fights and confrontation

happened on the basis of religion. They would not have occurred if the people

who were involved were from the same religion be it Hindus or Muslims.

Doesn’t matter. The biggest one in this regard is the demolition of Masjid in

Ayodhya. It is important to consider here that everything which took place from

starting was on the basis of the religious shrines. Hindus are of the opinion that

masjid was constructed after the demolition of ram mandir and according to

Muslims that masjid was built from the ancient time by their forefathers.


Whatever the opinions and arguments are there, it divided people which our

constitution- makers didn’t wanted definitely. They wanted that all the peoples

be it Hindus or Muslims or Christians live peacefully. There is no fight just on

the basis of religion. Our country should be unity in diversity.

Therefore, whatever the case maybe there should be no division on the basis of

religion. It is a very mean thing as it doesn’t recognize people’s qualities and

capabilities rather than it puts people into different stratas and layers on their

ascribed status which is not in the hands of the people. They have no control

over that. If any classification should be there or present, it should be on the

basis of the achieved status of the people as it would be equal because then

everything will depend on individual’s capabilities.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more