Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr. Sarvjeet Herbent And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 9823 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3361 (22 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 21



Dr. Sarvjeet Herbert and another


The State of Uttar Pradesh & others.

Hon'ble S. S. Kulshreshtha, J.

Hon'ble K. N. Ojha, J.

This petition has been brought for quashing the written report registered at Case Crime No. 318 of 2005, under Sections 147, 307, 379 and 504 I.P.C. police station Naini, district Allahabad.

It is said that with a view to harass the petitioners the counter version has been set up on the written report lodged at the instance of respondent no. 1 at Crime number 318 of 2005. Quite sometime the activists of "Bajrang Dal", "Shiv Sena" and "Vishwa Hindu Parishad" were bent upon to create disturbance in "Yeshu Darbar", which was being conducted to teach lofty ideals of Christianity to provide healing. These activists propagated that "Yeshu Darbar" was set up with a view to make conversion of Hindus to Christian. It is all false and mischievous propaganda. The assembly of "Yeshu Darbar" takes place in an open field full of public gaze. It is only the disgruntled element of the society who is bent upon to cause harm to the minority institution / Deemed University and they are creating one or the other problems.

Earlier in the past such element brought Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19818 of 2002, Ram Gopal Tripathi Vs. Dr. Sarvajeet Herbert and others, which was decided by this Court recognizing the fundamental rights of the petitioners to hold religious meetings as covered under Article 19(1(d) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. This order was assailed by unsuccessful petitioners of that writ petition before the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 20132 of 2003, Ram Gopal Tripathi Vs. Allahabad Agricultural Institute & others, that too was dismissed.

It is said that on 4.9.2005 when the petitioners were conducting "Yeshu Darbar" in the morning the respondent no. 4, an activist of "Bajrang Dal" alongwith his accomplice attacked at "Yeshu Darbar" while service was going on. They used abusive language, pelted stones on public and broke the Holy Cross. In the result the security officer of Allahabad Agricultural Deemed University lodged FIR at police station Naini, Allahabad, at 10.00 A.M. at Crime No. 222 of 2005, police station Naini, Allahabad, under Sections 296, 357, 504, 323, 427 I.P.C. and one Neeraj Dwivedi was arrested by the police in the said offence. It is further contended that the complainant and other activists of "Bajrang Dal", "Shiv Sena" and "Vishwa Hindu Parishad" was creating chaos with intention to cause disturbance in the University.

Thrust has also been laid that it was the fundamental right of the petitioners to conduct religious teaching. The complainant and other persons associated with one or other groups have no right to cause interference. In this regard it is useful to refer the observations made by this Court in Writ petition No. 19818 of 2002, Ram Gopal Tripathi Vs. Dr. Sarvajeet Herbert and others, which reads as under:

"We make it clear that Article 25(1) is subject to public order, morality and health. Hence the authorities can certainly see to it that the gatherings in "Yeshu Darbar" or elsewhere do not adversely affect public order, morality or health. Citizens of all religions and communities are equal and first rate citizens of our country and we are proud that all religions are treated equally in our country. It is because of the wisdom and for sightedness of our Founding Fathers who provided for secularism in our Constitution that India is surviving even now with so much diversity (so many castes, religions, lingual and ethnic groups etc.) it could not have survived otherwise.

We, however, hasten to add that if these gatherings are attended to mislead people by making false and untenable claims designed to lure poor, incredulous and ignorant masses into joining a particular fold, faith or religious group by false exaggerated claims as to possession of divine and supernatural powers, the same will certainly attract the attention of the authorities and the Courts alike which can prohibit or strike down such activities. The Court cannot countenance any abuse or misuse of such gatherings, which may result in chaos and disorder. For the present we have not found in the petition any such specific allegation so as to warrant interference by this Court."

In this context it may also be mentioned that such teachings is a visible manifestation of the feelings or sentiments of an individual or a group and would fall within the freedom guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. It was all said to be peaceful and such orderly administration of the teaching would fall within the freedom guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The fundamental right of the petitioners under Articles 19(1)(d) and 25(1) of the Constitution appears to have been infringed and they were entitled to protect their right and for that reason if any resistance has been made by them, no culpability can be inferred. If such a situation is permitted to perpetrate it will not be in the interest of the Society and the Institution both and the Administration should put a constant vigil. We may only wish to add that our tradition teaches tolerance, and our Constitution practices tolerances, which are not to be diluted. If there is any grievance to the complainant or other persons they may go to the Administration and which shall see how the fundamental right is being misused.

Having regards the facts and circumstances of the case the arrest of the petitioners for the offences indicated above shall remain stayed till submission of the report.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Dt/- 22.9.2005



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.