The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.21189 of 2017 is filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give proper support in the festival of St. Saveriyar Church situated at Purathakudi, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District from 24.11.2017 to 03.12.2017 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to give adequate protection at the time of flag march and Sapparm to be held from 24.11.2017 to 03.12.2017 and to ensure the implementation of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.18517 of 2014, dated 20.11.2015.
2.The brief facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as follows:
2.1.The petitioner states that he is an active member of his native Purathakudi Parish Church having a catholic population of about three thousand people. It is stated that around two thousand people belong to Vellalar and Mutharaja communities and around thousand members belong to Dalit community. It is stated that the members of the church used to have two festivals and one is the feast of St.Saveriyar which begins on the 24th November with flag hoisting. Though the procession which is arranged following flag hoisting goes through Pascha Medai Veethi, Madathu Theru, Therku and Main Road, it is stated by the petitioner that the procession will not come through the streets in which Dalit people are residing, namely, North Sebastiyar Street, South Sebastiyar Street and Theradi street. Similarly, it is also the case of the petitioner that on 2nd December, there will be a small car procession (Saparam) and that Saparam also will not be taken through the streets in which the Dalit people are living. It is also stated that there would be a holy mass by the native Priest of the Parish. It is stated by the petitioner that the big car (Ther) also will be taken only through the streets in which Vellalar and Mutharaja caste people are living. It is further stated that the church administration does not collect festival contribution from the believers who belong to Dalit community. It is also contended that the members belong to Dalit community are not included to Parish Council which is the local administrative body. On all occasions when the saparam or big car is taken by way of procession, it is stated by the petitioner that the Dalit people will not be allowed to touch the saparam or big car. The discrimination also stated to be in every programme and that the Dalit people will not be even allowed to participate in cultural events. Even when the other groups belong to the major communities who are the aggressors, the petitioner and his people belong to Dalit community have to compromise for the sake of peace and their safety in the village.
3.The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition earlier in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014 before this Court for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to ensure the admission of the representatives of the Dalit Christians in the Parish Council, to collect contributions from the Dalit Christians for all the festivals, to take St. Saveriyar flag on 24th November and St. Saveriyar saparam on the 2nd December and to take the saparam during the Pasca (Easter) festival and all other similar festivals through the Dalit streets such as North Sebastiyar street, south Sebastiyar street and Theradi street. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the official respondents were directed to ensure that the flag as well as car are also taken through the streets namely North Sebastiyar street, South Sebastiyar street and Theradi street on all days on which the festivals are conducted. A direction was also issued to permit the Dalit Christians to take part in the cultural events in the Auditorium located near the Church. The grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents in that Writ Petition did not implement the order passed by this Court and further stated that the revenue and police officials convened peace meetings on several occasions for name sake and that ultimately washed their hands off and refused to take responsibility or endeavour to implement the order passed by this Court earlier in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that the non-Dalit catholic members refused to accept the order of this Court and hence, they have not conducted the festival for the past two years under the pretext that the festival could not be conducted in view of the poor economic condition due to monsoon failure and drought. It is only to avoid the participation of the Dalit members in the festival and to circumvent the order of this Court, the petitioner states that the festival which was conducted for several decades was not conducted for the past two years. It is also stated that in one of the peace committee meetings, particularly, that was held on 07.04.2017, the Dalit people stated to have expressed their wish to conduct the festival from 24.11.2017 to 03.12.2017 by them after collecting contributions from the members of the Dalit community and well-wishers. It was further stated that the persons who are administering the Church as well as the Government authorities did not accept the petitioner's request. The petitioner also stated to have submitted representation to the Bishop of Kumbakonam namely the sixth respondent as well as other official respondents on 03.11.2017 to give protection and to grant police protection for the conduct of festival (St. Saveriyar Thiruvizha) in December, 2017 with the participation of Dalit Christians as well as caste Christians under the guidance of the sixth respondent. Since none of the representations were considered, the petitioner states that he is constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
4.Since the festival starts from 24th November and the learned counsel for the petitioner is able to convince the Court about the urgency, the petitioner was also directed to implead the main person who represents the caste Christians in the village. The petitioner therefore filed W.M.P.(MD)No.17655 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.21189 of 2017 to implead the 8th respondent and the said petition was also ordered. After the filing of this Writ Petition, another Writ Petition was filed by one J.Nelson Barnabas and three others in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 are all native residents of Purathakudi Village. These petitioners claim that they are the Parish members of the Church by name St. Xavier's Church (Punitha Saveriyar Alayam). The Writ Petition is for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police and the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station to provide police protection for peaceful conduct of St. Xavier's festival (Saveriyar Thiruvizha) at St. Xavier's Church situated at Purathakudi Village. Though the two Writ Petitions have been filed for similar relief, it is to be noted that the two Writ Petitions were filed by two different groups who have serious issues. While the first Writ Petition is filed by the Dalit Christian community who are also the members of the Church, the second Writ Petition appears to have been filed by the persons who belong to different communities who have some difficulties in accepting the participation of the members of Dalit community in the festival equally and who have some objections for taking saparam through the streets in which the members of Dalit community are residing. The petitioners in the second Writ Petition have stated that the procession route of the small car / saparam became a cause of disagreement for some Parish members of the Church who belong to the scheduled caste. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is repeatedly stated that their religion does not believe in or recognise divisions on the basis of the castes they categorically say that they have some objections for taking the saparam through the three streets in which the persons belonging to Dalit community are residing. The petitioners in the second Writ Petition though admit the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014 they states that there are logistic problems in taking out the small car procession through the newly proposed routes particularly the three streets in which the Dalit people are residing and that they are advised to seek clarification from this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017. Their main object appears to be not to take the saparam on procession this year and to take only the big car (Ther) as the procession according to the petitioners in the W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 is restricted only to few streets which is around the Church and it is not even taken to the streets in which majority of the Christians belonging to other communities reside.
5.Sum and substance, the object of the petitioners in filing W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 appears to be not to take the saparam in procession this year and to conduct the festival only by taking the big car in the usual route so that this year also there will not be participation by the enthusiastic Dalit members who have complained discrimination. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.21189 of 2017 submitted that though untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden, the intention / object behind the non-conduct of festival for the past two years is only to avoid implementation of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014 and that the petitioners who are entitled to have protection and to fight against untouchability cannot be discriminated by the Christians belong to other communities in the village only because the petitioner and their men belonging to Dalit community. It is further stated that the fact that the festival contribution is not collected from the petitioner and that the Dalit Christians are not included in Parish council which is the local administrative body and that the other practice would demonstrate that untouchability which is forbidden under
Article 17 of the Constitution of India still exists and that the petitioner should be granted the relief which they are entitled to, as guaranteed to them under our Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014, dated 20.11.2015. The Writ Petition namely W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014 was filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2014 to ensure the admission of representatives of Dalit Christians for all the festivals, to collect contribution from the Dalit Christians for all the festivals, to take St. Saveriyar flag on 24th November and St. Saveriyar saparam on the 2nd December and to take the saparam during the Easter festival and other similar festivals in Purathakudi Parish Church through the Dalit streets, namely, North Sebastiyar Street, South Sebastiyar Street and Theradi Street on the days on which the festivals are scheduled to be held. The said Writ Petition was allowed after considering the legal and factual issues. The stand taken by the sixth respondent one Kulanthai Raj representing the Christians belonging to other communities was also recorded. Hence, the dispute is the same even in the earlier Writ Petition. It is recorded that one group of people are not willing to allow the flag as well as the car to be taken through the streets in which the Dalit Christians are living. Though the sixth respondent and his group of people contested the case before this Court by justifying the restrictions as part of the tradition and customary practice, it is observed by this Court that behind the veil of such sophisticated plea, the intention was to continue the practice of untouchability which cannot be permitted in the light of the Constitutional mandate. For convenience, the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 20 to 26 are extracted below: ?20.In one of the earliest cases to come up before this court in Kattalai Michael Pillai and others V. Right Reverend M.Barthe S.J., 1916 (Vol.30) MLJ 423, a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with a fight between people belonging to Vellalar Community and Nadar Community. Though all of them were Roman Catholics, one section claimed to be high caste Christians and they sought to prevent the so-called low caste Christians from entering upon or occupying a portion of the Church premises, where they claimed to have the exclusive right of being seated and of partaking in the ceremonies conducted there. The so-called high caste Christians claimed that even if seats were vacant on the side that was allotted to them, the other Christians belonging to the so-called lower castes could not be accommodated there. Terming the practice sought to be adopted in that case, which is almost similar to the practice sought to be adopted in this case, as an attempt to preventing presumption, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
?Now injury by pollution to lawful worshippers in a Hindu temple or to the image in the temple through the presence of people belonging to castes below the fourth caste (Known as polluting castes) is a matter of ?mixed spiritual and temporal character.? But the sentiment of pollution in a Christian Church indulged in by so-called caste Christians is neither spiritual nor temporal injury and it seems to me rather brazen to ask a Civil Court to recognize it as a legal injury giving rise to a civil cause of action. The bad usage, never accepted as lawful or invariable by the Shanars, by which in this Church finished about 40 years ago, they have been usually confined to the northern wing cannot be recognised as a reasonable custom having the force of law.
?Justice and Truth with Custom's hydra brood Wage silent war?
and custom, though not reasonable, sometimes wins in Courts of justice when buttressed (as in the case of many Hindu customs) by theological writings whether genuine or spurious. The usage relied on by the appellants in this case cannot make a shadow of claim to even such theological buttressing up and Mr.Rangachariar's attempts to quote one or two ancient Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics in favour of his clients failed utterly.
I find also that there are references in the documents to other castes who have been sitting in the southern and northern wings respectively as they belonged respectively to the touchable castes like the plaintiffs or the non- touchable castes like the Shanars. The plaintiffs cannot invoke (like the Hindus) the sanction of accepted sacredotal texts (whether genuine or spurious) for perpetuating the distinction (and that, in God's House) between human beings during a particular life period by reason solely of birth as touchables and untouchables. While even among Hindus the strength of this distinction and of the alleged religious sanction therefore is according to competent authorities being weakened in these days through the effects of several unifying causes, it is difficult for one to sympathise with the efforts of so-called caste Christians to obtain legal sanction for alleged customs among them tending in the opposite direction?.
21.In Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Poottai Mariamman Temple Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2010) 4 MLJ 1077, a similar argument was advanced by one group of people claiming that one of the main festivals of the temple was the annual car festival and that the same was performed strictly as per the custom. In that case, it was claimed that the temple car was taken normally through the customary route and that the same had actually become a charted route. When a claim was made that the car should be taken through certain other streets where Dalits live, the claim led to a law and order problem. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer called for a peace committee meeting. In the peace committee meeting, the Revenue Divisional Officer prohibited the car festival itself and directed the constitution of a committee.
22.Challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a writ petition was filed by the President of the temple. A direction was also sought to the Revenue Divisional Officer not to interfere with the religious and customary rights of persons in the performance of the annual temple car festival as per the tradition and practice. When the said writ petition came up before this court, a learned Judge of this Court pointed out that in the absence of any established custom or right, there is no scope for the trustees to assert a right of taking the temple car only through a particular route, thereby denying the right of the colony Dalits from worshipping the deity in the colony itself. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge in his decision reported in (2010) 4 MLJ 1077 referred to two decisions of other Division Benches of this Court, one in Puthiya Tamilagam vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2005)3 L.W. 140 and another in G.Krishnan and others vs. Union of India.
23.Therefore, the stand taken by the sixth respondent in this age and in the light of the constitutional provisions cannot be accepted. The sketch furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the streets through which the petitioner wants the flag and the car to go, are lesser in length and also located near the place where the Church itself is situate. We can understand at least if logistically there was some difficulty in taking the flag and the car through the streets where the petitioner claims that the car and the flag should be taken. But the sketch shows that the flag and the car are normally taken through streets that are located far beyond the streets where the Dalit Christians live.
24.As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice an Action Plan proposed by the Tamil Nadu Bishop Council for the Integrated Development of Catholic Dalits in Tamil Nadu.
25.In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed directing the official machinery namely, the Revenue and the Police, to ensure that the flag as well as the car are also taken through the streets namely, North Sebastiyar Street, South Sebastiyar Street and Theradi streets on the days on which the festivals are scheduled to be held. The Dalit Christians shall also be permitted to take part in the cultural event in the auditorium located near the church.
26.Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that armed with this order the petitioner and others should not deprive the participation of the sixth respondent and should not take away the flag as well as the car from them. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all that they want is that the flag and the car should pass through their streets and nothing more. Therefore, this apprehension is not real. No costs. Connected MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.?
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that whenever a representation was sent for conducting the festival, as per the direction of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, peace committee meeting was conducted by the revenue and police officials and it was resolved not to conduct the festival as the Christians belonging to other communities object for the conduct of festival due to poor economic conditions and drought. Having regard to the nature of prayer in the Writ Petitions and the main issue that arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions, this Court heard the matters together and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective cases is convinced that the issue is whether the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.21189 of 2017 is entitled to the relief they prayed for namely to get adequate police protection for taking the flag march and saparam through the streets in which the members of the Dalit community are residing during St. Saveraiyar Thiruvizha between 24.11.2017 and 03.12.2017. Having regard to the prayer and submissions of counsels on both sides, though the petitioner is entitled to get an order in view of the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 20.11.2015 in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014, with an intention to solve the problem amicably, without giving room for any hatred or ill-feeling between the two groups, this Court wanted the parties to amicably arrive at a settlement for the conduct of the festival this year, this Court passed the following order on 21.11.2017:
?2.The sixth respondent, namely, the Bishop, Catholic Diocese of Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District is directed to convene a meeting in the presence of the first respondent / the Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Trichy District who shall provide police protection for conducting the meeting. The proposed meeting shall be held on 23.11.2017 at 02.00 p.m. The petitioners in both the cases should participate in the meeting with another representative or counsel of their choice. The meeting is about the possibility of conducting festival by taking Saparam and Flag March through all streets without any discrimination.?
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents produced a copy of the decision taken at the peace committee meeting held on 23.11.2017 which reads as under:
?nkw;go Tl;lj;jpy;. brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; (WP.MD- 18517/2014, ehs;/ 20.11.2015) tH';fg;gl;l jPu;g;ghiz cj;jputpd; mog;gilapy; jpUtpHh elj;j ntz;Lk; vd bjuptpj;jdu;/ jw;nghija fhupa!;ju;fs; mjw;F vjpu;g;g[ bjuptpj;J tHf;F WP.MD-21503/2017, brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; epYitapy; cs;sjhy;. me;j tHf;fpy; mspf;fg;gLk; jPu;g;gpd; mog;gilapy; tpHh elj;JtJ Fwpj;J Kot[ bra;ayhk; vd bjuptpj;jdu;/ mtu;fsJ fUj;jpidf; nfl;l khtl;l fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsu; mtu;fs;. Vw;fdnt tH';fg;gl;l ePjpkd;w cj;jputpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s tPjpfspd; tHpahf rg;guk; bry;y kWg;ggtu;fs; ahu; vd tpdtpdhu;/ mtu;fspy; (1) gt[y; milf;fyuh$;. j- bg/nldpay;. (2) gt[y;uh$;. j-bg/n$hrg; (muR gs;sp Mrpupau;) (3) bey;rd;. j- bg/n$hjp gpufhrk; (4)jhk!; nrtpau;. j-bg/kjiy Kj;J Mfpa nkw;fz;l ehd;F jw;nghija fhupa!;ju;fs; ePjpkd;w jPu;g;gpid Vw;Wf;bfhs;s ,irt[ bjuptpj;jdu;/ jw;nghija jiyik fhupa!;juhf cs;s vod; gnuh. j-bg/hdgpufhrk; vd;gtu; kl;Lk; bgUk;ghyhd fpuhk kf;fspd; fUj;jpw;fpz';f ePjpkd;w jPu;g;g[iuapid Vw;f ,ayhJ vd bjuptpj;jhu;/ Fk;gnfhzk; kiwkhtl;l Mau;. g[wj;jhf;Fo J}a rntupahu; g';Fj;je;ij kw;Wk; Kd;dhs;. ,d;dhs; fhupa!;ju;fs; mtUf;F vLj;Jf; Twpa[k;. mtuJ fUj;jpypUe;J khwhky; ePjpkd;w jPu;g;gpid Vw;f ,ayhJ vd bjuptpj;jhu;/ Tl;lj;jpd; Kotpy;. ,Ujug;gpdUk; fdk; brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; epYitapy; cs;s jpU/G/!;Ogd; jh!; vd;gtu; jhf;fy; bra;j WP.MD-21189/2017 kw;Wk; jpU/bey;rd; gu;dgh!; tifawh mtu;fs; jhf;fy; bra;j WP.MD-21503/2017 kD Mfpatw;wpd; kPJ mspf;fg;gLk; ePjpkd;w jPu;g;gpd;go KGikahf gpd;gw;Wtjhf bjuptpj;jdu;/?
8.It is to be noted that the Principal Secretary by name G.Edin Berough, the second petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 has recorded his objection during peace committee meeting that they are not in a position to accept the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition namely W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014, dated 20.11.2015. Despite this Court has given a positive direction in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.21189 of 2017 and several members belong to the other group have also agreed to conduct the festival by implementing the direction of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, one individual refused to conduct the festival as per the direction of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition stating that that is the opinion of majority of the Village people. It is nobody's case that the direction of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014 is the subject matter of any appeal or review. When the bare facts in this case clearly reveals that the members of the Dalit community are shown discrimination based on castes and that the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 have serious objections to take saparam and flag march through the streets in which the members of the Dalit community are living only due to some sentiments they have and they are not able to treat the members of the Dalit community as equal to them, this Court also is of the view that the discrimination shown to the petitioner in this case is also one of the practice which is forbidden under
Article 17 of the Constitution of India. Since this Court had earlier given a positive direction to ensure the participation of the members of the Dalit community in the festival without discrimination and to draw the small car / saparam and flag march through the three streets in which the members of the Dalit community are living, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(a) the members of the Dalit community and other caste Christians are directed to conduct the St. Xavier's festival (Saveriyar Thiruvizha) at Saveriyar church by collecting contributions from all the members of the St. Xavier's Church, Purathakudi irrespective of caste and the respondents 2 and 3 shall render all assistance and to give adequate police protection for the conduct of St. Xavier's flag march and saparam to be held from 24.11.2017 to 03.12.2017 to ensure the conduct of festival in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18517 of 2014, dated 20.11.2015;
(b) the respondents 1 to 7 are directed to ensure that the saparam and the flag march are taken through the streets namely North Sebastiyar street, South Sebastiyar street and Theradi street on all the days on which festivals are conducted in St. Xavier's Church at Purathakudi village; and
(c) the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 are also directed to cooperate for the implementation of the direction of this Court earlier and by this year so that the members of Dalit community are also treated alike with the true understanding of Gospel, preached to the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 who are members of the Church. In case, the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 are not agreeable for the conduct of St. Xavier's festival this year at St. Xavier's Church at Purathakudi village as per the decision of this Court, the festival shall be conducted by the members of the Dalit community taking with them any other member of the Church for collecting contribution and making arrangement for the conduct of festival in a grand manner as it has been organised and conducted all these years. The respondents 5 to 7 are directed to preach the gospel to the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.21503 of 2017 and try to convey them and inculcate them the real principles and values the Christians are expected to follow and respect.
9.Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
To
1.The District Collector, Trichy District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalkudi, Trichy District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Trichy District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District.
5.The Archbishop of Madurai, Archbishop's House, K.Pudur, Madurai.
6.The Bishop, Catholic Diocese of Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
7.The Parish Priest, St. Saveriyar Church, Purathakudi, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.
.