Expression ‘Indianism’ should not be torn or understood out of context, observed

Jammu and Kashmir High Court– Deciding on a contempt petition filed by the petitioner seeking implementation of the decision given in Sanjay Tickoo v. State (OWP No. 610 of 2007), a bench comprising of Muzaffar Hussain Attar J, clarified the expression ‘Indianism’ showing concern towards the fact that that few individuals misunderstood the purport and import of judgment dated in Sanjay Tickoo v. State and the press reports depicted that the expression ‘Indianism’ was torn out of the context of the theme of the judgement by a small group of persons. The Court appreciated the maturity shown by all sections of society in times of provocation and stated that the Courts have been protecting the religious practices, places as also propagation thereof as the same is guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The Court stated that it has been sufficiently clarified in the earlier judgment that India is pluralistic State where the citizens are Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and all the rights, which include religious rights of all these citizens belonging to different religious denominations, are protected and guaranteed by Constitution of India. The Court further expounded the expression ‘Indianism’ with the help of constitutional provisions such as Articles 14, 15, 16, 26-30 and observed that ‘Indianism’ in the context of Indian Constitution protects all religions and all religious activities and ensures that there is no inter-religious conflict and people, though have right to practice, preach and propagate their religion, do not cause harm to other citizens belonging to other religions and live in harmony. The Court also observed that Indianism is Hindustaniat, which is akin to Kashmiriat and that the fascist bent of mind called fascism, is abhorrent to and antithesis of idea of India, otherwise called ‘Indianism’.

The contempt petition was disposed of by the Court accordingly since the requisite information has been provided to the Divisional Commissioner which will implement the Court judgment. Sanjay Tickoo v. Anil Goswami, 2015 SCC OnLine J&K 93, decided on 12.5.2015

 

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *