Religion far exceeds people who profess or follow it: HC

The Nihangs are followers of Sikhism and Gurmat but are not a religion unto themselves, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said.

“The attire given to them is traditional but it is not a part of religion. The symbols worn by them depict their rank and group but does not become a part of religion. An ardent follower of faith through its rituals and practices cannot partake religion itself which lives beyond the followers,” the bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj observed dismissing a plea against a movie, Masand.

The plea was from one Ranjit Singh Poohla seeking a ban on the screening of the movie claiming that it is likely to promote against the values, religious symbols and sentiments of Sikh religion. “The movie promotes community hatred as the character of the villain draws similarity with the life of the deceased revered jathedar, Ajit Singh Poohla, head of the Nihang sect, Tarna Dal, who was murdered by some ‘radical elements’. The movie glorified the murderers to have done the right thing,” Poohla, head of Nihang jathedari, had claimed, adding that such portrayal is to the “detriment of the tenets of Sikhism”.

The court underlined that the people professing a religion or going by the rules of a religion do not become religion unto themselves. “Religion far exceeds the people who profess it or follow the same. ….to equate a jathebandi or any community of Nihangs as an integral part of

Sikh religion is thus a deliberate attempt to blur the line of religion and the followers thereof,” the bench asserted, adding that no such attempt can be accepted to crush the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

It further added that the moral arguments for restriction on freedom of speech could be infringement of autonomy or dignity of the other.

“The understanding of the right cannot be left to an abstract understanding by an uncontrolled regime devoid of reason and objectivity, thus silencing speech and expression. Such intolerant groups pose danger to the constitutional right allowing everyone to espouse their views,” it further recorded while referring to rights under Article 19 of the freedom of speech and expression and provisions for government intervention on reasonable restrictions.

The court said art and artist have challenged contemporary wisdom and belief and the purpose of art and its ability of portrayal in myriad forms would be gravely defeated if tendency of pulling off films is allowed upon opposition from some quarter. “Any such restriction on right of the playwright, artist, musician or actor, if are to be subjected to popular notion of what is acceptable and what is not, would be a step towards rendering the rights guaranteed under the Constitution as illusory. Merely because the Constitution recognises inalienable freedoms to every citizen, it would not by itself empower every citizen to become a law unto himself and to impose his authority over and above statutory authorities conferred with overseeing implementation of such law and protection of such rights,” the bench said referring to the clearance that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had given to the movie.

The court underlined that tolerance, acceptance and mutuality of existence are essence of Sikhism.

“Rigidity and intolerance have no scope in a religion which commenced by challenging rigidity and dogmatic practices and questioning the relic worship,” it said.

“Religion and belief are often beyond objectivity and are largely not influenced by anyone else’s non-belief. Any such fear is disbelief in the foundation of religion itself which he claims to profess,” the bench said dismissing the plea.