State Govt Order Permitting Only A Muslim Priest To Perform Rituals At Datta Peeta Violates Right To Religion Of...
The issue of permitting only a Muslim priest to perform rituals at the Datta Peeta shrine (also called Dattatreya Peetha or Bababudangiri) has raised significant constitutional concerns under the Right to Freedom of Religion in India.
This matter involves a conflict between religious communities—Hindus and Muslims—over control and ritual performance at a syncretic shrine, and it directly engages Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
Let’s break down the issue and legal implications, with detailed constitutional and case law analysis:
🔷 Background: Datta Peeta Shrine Dispute
Location: Chikkamagaluru district, Karnataka.
Nature of Shrine: It is a syncretic religious site, claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.
Hindus believe it to be the abode of Lord Dattatreya, a Hindu deity.
Muslims revere it as the shrine (dargah) of Sufi saint Baba Budan, who is believed to have lived there centuries ago.
Historically, both Hindu and Muslim practices were carried out at the shrine.
🔷 Government Order in Question
A State Government Order (G.O.) permitted only a Muslim priest (mujawar) to perform religious rituals at the shrine.
This decision excluded Hindu priests or devotees from performing any ritual or pooja linked to Lord Dattatreya.
🔷 Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 25(1) – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion:
"Subject to public order, morality and health, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion."
Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs:
Every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property;
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.
🔷 Core Legal Issue:
Does a State Government Order permitting only a Muslim priest to perform rituals at a disputed, syncretic shrine infringe the right of Hindu devotees to practice their religion under Article 25 and manage their religious affairs under Article 26?
🔷 Case Law Analysis
1. Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 11
Principle: The Court held that essential religious practices are protected, and the State cannot interfere unless it’s a secular or administrative matter.
Relevance: If Hindu rituals at Datta Peeta are shown to be essential religious practices, their exclusion violates Article 25.
2. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of U.P., (1997) 4 SCC 606
Principle: State cannot obliterate religious practices unless for secular or reformative purposes.
Relevance: Government action that removes Hindu rituals at a shared shrine, favoring one religious practice over another, would violate religious freedom.
3. A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548
Principle: The State cannot determine or impose how religious rituals are to be conducted unless they violate public order or morality.
Relevance: Appointing only a Muslim priest and disallowing Hindu rituals may be an overreach into religious affairs.
4. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case), (2018) 10 SCC 1
Principle: The right to worship is protected under Article 25, and denial of access to places of worship is unconstitutional unless justified by valid exceptions.
Relevance: Excluding Hindus from performing rituals at a site they consider holy violates their right to worship.
5. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, (1954) SCR 1005 (Shirur Mutt Case)
Principle: The Court drew a distinction between religious and secular practices. It held that State cannot interfere in essential religious practices.
Relevance: If rituals by Hindu priests are essential to the religious expression of the community at Datta Peeta, the G.O. violates Article 25 & 26.
🔷 Karnataka High Court Ruling
In the Datta Peeta case itself, the Karnataka High Court in 2017 quashed the State Government’s order that restricted religious practices only to a Muslim priest and directed that both communities must be allowed to perform their rituals in accordance with the shrine’s syncretic tradition.
Court's observation: The State must remain neutral in religious matters and cannot favor one religion over another at a shared religious site.
🔷 Summary of Legal Position
The State’s role is secular and should not enforce religious exclusivity at a shared place of worship.
Exclusion of Hindu priests and their rituals at a site venerated by Hindus violates their fundamental rights under Article 25.
The G.O. also impacts Article 26 rights, as it prevents Hindus from managing religious affairs connected to their faith at the site.
The State cannot favor one community over another in a disputed religious space.
The Courts have consistently held that essential religious practices are constitutionally protected, and State interference must be minimal and only for secular purposes.
🔚 Conclusion
The Government Order permitting only a Muslim priest to perform rituals at Datta Peeta violates the Right to Religion under Articles 25 and 26 of Hindu devotees. Judicial precedents make it clear that the State must act neutrally and respect the pluralistic and syncretic nature of such religious sites. The Karnataka High Court has rightly quashed such exclusivist actions, upholding the constitutional principle of religious equality and freedom.
RELATED Blog
0 comments