India's Supreme Court Wednesday said no person, not even the most popular leader, should be allowed to give speeches that destroy the country's secular fabric or stoke communal violence.
Expressing anguish at "vested interests fanning fundamentalism of all kinds" of late, a bench comprising judges Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat observed "... the state should have no religion of its own and no one could proclaim to make the state have one such or endeavour to create a theocratic state."
In a series of sharp and significant observations while allowing a Karnataka government appeal concerning a February 2003 visit to Mangalore by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Pravind Togadia, the two judges said secularism was not to be confused with communal or religious concepts of an individual or a group of persons.
"Religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the state and fundamentalism of any kind cannot be permitted to masquerade as political philosophies to the detriment of the larger interest of society and basic requirement of a welfare state," the bench said.
It said "communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion, be it of minority or that of the majority".
The bench said vested interests had of late been fanning religious fundamentalism of all kinds and were attempting to subject the constitutional machinery of the state to great stress and strain with certain quaint ideas of religious priorities to promote their own selfish ends.
In this, the vested interests were undeterred and unmindful of the disharmony they might ultimately bring about.
The bench said such vested interests even undermined national integration achieved with much difficulty and the laudable determination of "strong spirited savants of yesteryears".
The bench urged the government to ensure that people belonging to different religions had the protection to freely "profess, practise and propagate" their religions.
Allowing the Karnataka government appeal against a state high court judgment quashing the ban imposed by the Mangalore district administration on Togadia's visit in February last year, the bench said it was the subjective appreciation of the district administration to impose bans if it feared the law and order position would deteriorate if certain things were not prevented.
The bench said, "Persons belonging to different religions live throughout the length and breadth of the country. Each person whatever be his religion must get an assurance from the state that he has protection of law freely to profess, practice and propagate his religion and freedom of conscience.
"Otherwise, the rule of law will become replaced by individual perceptions of one's own presumptuous good social order."
The bench said if authorities were of the view that a person's speeches or actions were likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiparous tendencies that could affect communal harmony, prohibitory orders could be imposed to avert any untoward happenings.
The bench noted the "past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order".
The judges said if a person by his action or caustic speeches was bent upon sowing seed of mutual hatred and his proposed activities were likely to create disharmony, the state could take preventive actions.
The bench said in this case, the order of the additional district magistrate banning Togadia's entry into Dakshin Kannada district for 16 days in February 2003 was meant to prevent him from joining a Hindu gathering was perfectly legal and the high court should not have quashed the same.