The court’s decision on “Annadhanam” and “Angapradakshanam”

Source: The post the court’s decision on “Annadhanam” and “Angapradakshanam”has been created, based on the article “Human dignity versus religious practices” published in “The Hindu” on 25th June 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper1-society and GS paper 2-Indian constitution

Context: The article discusses a court ruling allowing a religious practice of rolling on leftover plantain leaves for spiritual benefits. It explores the legal conflict between religious customs and human rights, emphasizing the need for rationality and human dignity in such practices.

What was the court’s decision on “Annadhanam” and “Angapradakshanam”?

1. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court permitted the continuation of “annadhanam” (free food offering) and “angapradakshanam” (ritual rolling on plantain leaves) at Nerur Sathguru Sadasiva Brahmendral’s resting place.
2. The court ruled that these practices are fundamental religious rights under the Constitution, specifically citing Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25.
3. Justice Swaminathan overturned a previous 2015 Division Bench decision that had halted the practice, criticizing it for not involving all necessary parties, such as devotees and trustees.

How did Justice Swaminathan’s ruling differ?

1. Inclusion of Necessary Parties: Justice Swaminathan argued that the 2015 Division Bench’s order was flawed because it did not include or hear the necessary parties, such as the devotees and trustees of the Adhistanam.
2. Fundamental Rights: He invoked Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. He argued that the right to privacy includes “spiritual orientation” similar to how it includes gender and sexual orientation.
3. Promotion of Communal Harmony: Swaminathan highlighted that the practice at Nerur involved all devotees, regardless of caste, which promotes communal harmony and social integration.
4. Citing Religious Texts: He referenced the Mahabharata to support the belief that spiritual benefits are conferred by rolling on leftover food, thereby justifying the practice.
5. Contrast with Karnataka Case: Swaminathan negated the Supreme Court order by noting that the Karnataka case involved only Brahmins’ leftovers, which were rolled over by persons of other communities. In contrast, at Nerur, all devotees participated regardless of community. He observed that the practice points to communal amity and social integration.

What are the broader implications?

1. Conflict Between Rights: The case highlights the tension between religious freedoms under Article 25(1) and human dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21.
2. Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism: Justice Swaminathan’s ruling favors cultural practices over universal human rights standards, as seen with communal participation in angapradakshanam.
3. Judicial Precedents: The decision contrasts with a Supreme Court stay on a similar practice in Karnataka, stressing the need for consistent judicial approaches.
4. Health and Morality Concerns: Rolling on leftover plantain leaves raises public health issues, as previously noted in the Karnataka case.
5. Scientific Temper: The judgment raises questions about the state’s role in promoting rationality and scientific inquiry over traditional practices that may be superstitious or harmful.

Question for practice:

Examine Justice Swaminathan’s rationale in overturning the 2015 Division Bench decision regarding “annadhanam” and “angapradakshanam” at Nerur Sathguru Sadasiva Brahmendral’s resting place.