The Case of S P Mittal v Union of India (1983)

July 25, 2024
law books

Since India is a secular nation, its judiciary has occasionally made rulings that have demonstrated its tolerance for all religions. Articles 15 and 25 of the Indian Constitution safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of religion. The preamble of the Indian constitution was changed in 1976 to declare that India is a secular state. Modern India came into being in 1947. However, being right is insufficient.

sp mittal v union of india Case Facts

  • In this particular case, Sri Aurobindo was involved in politics in addition to being a superb administrator and scholar. Afterwards, he moved to Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu, and gave everything up to live a life of meditation.
  • He met Madam M. Alfassa, also known as Mother, there and she went on to become his student. In order to spread and put Sri Aurobindo’s principles and beliefs into reality, his disciples and the mother later founded The Sri Aurobindo Society.
  • The Mother, the organization’s founding president, established the township of Auroville, where individuals might come and pursue a variety of interests. Subsequently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) decided to provide funding to support Auroville’s development.
  • Following the mother’s death, a number of issues including project mismanagement and financial misappropriation surfaced, which prevented the townships from developing and operating as planned.
  • Thus, the Tamil Nadu government assumed control of Auroville’s management and filed a presidential edict that eventually became the auroville emergency provisions act, 1980, bearing in mind the international the nature of Auroville as a result of the UNESCO accord.
  • The Act’s validity was disputed on four fronts because the government took control of a “religious” enterprise. The violation of article 29 of indian constitution and article 30 of indian constitution was one of the reasons given.

sp mittal v union of india Issues

  • Was it within the legislative authority of Parliament to pass the contested legislation?
  • Does the auroville emergency provision act of 1980 contravene the provisions of the Constitution?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • The petitioner argued that auroville emergency provision act, 1980 is outside the purview of Parliament’s legislative authority because it pertains to a topic on the State Legislative List. Therefore, it needs to be ruled null and void.
  • The prosecution claims that the contested Act allows for the Society to relinquish management of Auroville for a set amount of time.
  • As is clear from Section 5(5) of the impugned Act itself, the management of Auroville prior to the impugned Act was vested in the Governing Body under the provisions of the west bengal societies registration act as well as memorandum along with certain rules and regulations of the Society.
  • The petitioners further argued that the correct way to tackle this question is to see if any of the articles in List II of the Seventh Schedule apply to the contested law.

Respondent:

  • The Respondents argued that something general could not be a religious denomination. Something different from another must exist for a denomination to be considered distinct.
  • A denomination, according to the counsel, is one that is distinct from the other; therefore, if the Society were a religious denomination, the applicant would have to renounce his prior religion and be unable to practice two separate religions concurrently.
  • That being said, this is not how one joins Auroville or the society. It is a requirement that a religious denomination be brand-new and that it offer a single, innovative technique.

sp mittal v union of india Judgment

  • The auroville emergency provisions act, 1980 was enacted by the Parliament using its legislative authority.
  • Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule does not address the topic of the contested Act. The disputed Act’s subject matter would in any case be covered by the residuary entry 97 of List I, even if it is not specifically covered by any item of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution’s List I or III.
  • The purpose of the Lists in the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule is not to grant authority. They only draw boundaries around the legislative domains. Articles 245 to 248 of the Constitution grant the relevant legislature the authority to enact laws.
  • The Auroville Act, incidentally, does not overlap with the west bengal societies registration act, 1961, since it has nothing to do with the Society’s constitution, regulations, or dissolution.

The Supreme Court established guidelines regarding the definition of “Religion” and “religious denominations” in the current case, sp mittal v union of india, as well as in a number of other cases that will be further discussed. The court’s approach was quite clear regarding what should and should not be considered religious denominations. Particular rules were outlined by the religious denomination.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment