Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (Supreme Court, 2004) — the Ananda Marga Tandava case

The case shows the essential-practices test at work on a denomination's own claim about itself, and holds that what is essential to a religion cannot be altered at a later point of time. It also records a dissent that would have protected the practice subject to regulation, which examiners like to see acknowledged.

In the first Ananda Margi case, Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v Commissioner of Police (1983), the Supreme Court had held that "Tandava dance in public is not an essential rite of the Ananda Margi faith" and upheld orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restraining processions with the dance in Calcutta. The founder of the order, Ananda Murti, then prescribed the performance of the Tandava dance in public as an essential practice in the Carya Carya, the book of the order's doctrines. The Ananda Margis sought permission to perform the dance in public; the Commissioner permitted a procession without knife, live snake, trident or skull; the order challenged the restriction. The Supreme Court sent the matter to the Calcutta High Court, where a single judge and then a Division Bench held in the Ananda Margis' favour. The Commissioner appealed to a Bench of Rajendra Babu, Lakshmanan and Mathur JJ.

Is the performance of the Tandava dance in public, with the trident, skull and other symbols, an essential religious practice of the Ananda Marga order protected by Articles 25 and 26, in view of its later prescription in the Carya Carya?

Majority (Rajendra Babu and Mathur JJ.). The High Court had "wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the finding of this Court regarding the non-essential nature of Tandava dance to the Ananda Margi faith is due to the non-availability of any literature or prescriptions by the founder. The High Court is under the wrong impression that an essential part of religion could be altered at any subsequent point of time." The finding in the first case was binding, and the later prescription could not change the character of the practice. "In the result, we respectfully adopt the finding of this Court in the first Ananda Margi case and allow the instant appeal. Since we find that practice of Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Margi faith, there is no need to look into any other arguments advanced before us."

Dissent (Lakshmanan J.). The Ananda Margis are "a religious denomination and as such are entitled to the protection under Articles 25 and 26(b) of the Constitution for their beliefs and practices including their practice of Tandava dance in a procession or public place. The exercise of the freedom to act and practice in pursuance of religious beliefs is as much important as the freedom of believing in a religion." "If the conscience of a particular community has treated a particular practice as an integral or essential part of religion, the same is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India." The order was entitled to take out a peaceful procession with its symbols, subject to permission and regulation, and to single it out while other denominations carry their symbols would offend Article 14.

Whether a practice is essential to a religion is decided by the courts from the religion's doctrines, and a finding that a practice is not essential is not undone by the founder's later prescription: an essential part of a religion cannot be altered at a later point of time. The Tandava dance in public is not essential to the Ananda Marga faith and may be restricted in the interests of public order.