Hanuman Chalisa Plea Rejected by Calcutta HC.

Hanuman Chalisa Plea Rejected by Calcutta HC.

            First-Time Event: Calcutta High Court Declines to Pass Order to Allow Hanuman Chalisa Recital at Red Road.
            In a significant and first-time judicial instance, the Calcutta High Court has declined to pass an order allowing the recital of the Hanuman Chalisa at Red Road, Kolkata. This petition was filed by a group seeking permission to hold the recital on April 12, which was denied earlier by the police.

The High Court’s decision not to intervene marks a critical moment in the ongoing discourse around the use of public spaces for religious purposes.

The petitioner, representing a religious and cultural group, approached the Calcutta High Court following the refusal of permission by the Kolkata Police. The request was for a one-day public gathering to conduct the recital of Hanuman Chalisa—a Hindu devotional hymn—on Red Road, a prominent location known for ceremonial functions and military parades.

Justice Jay Sengupta, who presided over the matter, chose not to interfere with the decision taken by law enforcement authorities. The rationale presented by the Court was grounded in maintaining public order and ensuring that religious events do not disrupt civic life or impede law and order considerations. The Court held that while freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution, it must be exercised within the framework of public policy and civic convenience.

This decision has ignited debates across various sections of the public, legal community, and religious organisations. On one hand, advocates for religious freedom argue that the denial of permission infringes on the constitutional right to practise and propagate religion. On the other hand, defenders of civic order and secular governance contend that public spaces should remain neutral and be utilised judiciously, especially when large gatherings could potentially disturb public tranquillity.

Simultaneous Developments in the Gauhati High Court

While the Calcutta High Court made headlines with its decision on the Hanuman Chalisa recital, another significant event unfolded in the Gauhati High Court. The Court issued a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act to three lawyers, including the Gauhati High Court Bar Association President, Kamal Nayan Choudhury. The petition was moved by the Advocate General (AG) of Assam, Devajit Saikia.

The allegations centred around contemptuous remarks made against Justice Suman Shyam during a protest against the relocation of the High Court building. Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya and Advocate Pallavi Talukdar were accused of making derogatory statements during a public protest. The AG’s petition stated that these comments, allegedly made in connivance with Choudhury, were not only disrespectful but bordered on scandalising the judiciary.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair took a serious view of the matter. The judges emphasised the growing and unfortunate trend of criticising courts and judges, particularly by members of the legal fraternity. According to the Bench, such tendencies must be curbed to maintain public confidence in judicial institutions.

The order directed media outlets, specifically YouTube and Prag News, to remove videos containing the contemptuous remarks. The Bench invoked provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2002, and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2011, to instruct the Union of India and the State of Assam to ensure immediate compliance.

Preserving Judicial Sanctity and Public Trust

The Court’s observation that the judiciary commands faith from millions of citizens underscores the centrality of judicial independence in a democratic framework. The remarks made it clear that it is not merely individual judges who are the custodians of justice, but the institution as a whole. Any action, speech, or demonstration that tends to undermine this institution can have serious implications for public trust.

Moreover, the judges noted that the legal fraternity bears a special responsibility in safeguarding the dignity of courts. Advocates are not only officers of the Court but also role models for young lawyers and the public at large. Therefore, when senior advocates indulge in behaviour that erodes the authority of courts, it sets a damaging precedent.

The Court also expressed regret that the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Sikkim had not yet taken disciplinary action against the involved advocates. The Bench called upon these institutions to act decisively and uphold the ethical standards expected of legal professionals.

Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

The events at the Calcutta and Gauhati High Courts offer a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between rights and responsibilities. In the case of the Hanuman Chalisa recital, the Calcutta High Court underscored the need for maintaining civic discipline even while respecting religious sentiments. The denial of permission was framed not as an act of religious discrimination, but as a measure for preserving public order.

In parallel, the Gauhati High Court reaffirmed the importance of judicial dignity and institutional respect. By taking strict action against errant members of the Bar, the Court sent a strong message that freedom of speech does not extend to vilifying the judiciary.

Public Reactions and Political Undertones

Unsurprisingly, both cases have stirred reactions from political and civil society groups. Some political leaders and activists have criticised the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to permit the Hanuman Chalisa event, calling it a suppression of Hindu religious rights. Others have applauded the decision, noting that secularism demands an equitable use of public spaces without religious overtones.

In the Gauhati case, legal scholars have largely supported the Court’s tough stance on contemptuous conduct, warning that unchecked defamation of the judiciary can lead to institutional breakdown. However, a section of the Bar has expressed concerns over freedom of expression and the right to critique judicial policies.

A Call for Institutional Reforms and Legal Awareness

These events also highlight the need for broader institutional reforms and public legal awareness. For instance, better guidelines for the use of public spaces for religious or political gatherings could prevent confusion and litigation. Similarly, awareness campaigns on contempt of court laws and ethical behaviour in the legal profession could help preserve the judiciary’s image.

Legal experts have also called for more proactive roles by Bar Councils in disciplining errant members and ensuring adherence to professional ethics. As institutions that regulate the legal profession, Bar Councils must function with accountability and commitment to judicial integrity.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to intervene in the Hanuman Chalisa recital issue marks a first-of-its-kind precedent on managing religion in public spaces. It emphasises the need to balance religious freedom with civic responsibilities. At the same time, the Gauhati High Court’s firm action against members of the Bar serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities borne by legal professionals in maintaining judicial dignity.

Together, these two events reflect the judiciary's evolving role in addressing the complexities of a pluralistic society. As India continues to navigate the intersections of law, religion, and civil discourse, such judicial pronouncements will play a pivotal role in shaping the country's democratic ethos.