Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SATYA RANJAN MAJHI AND ANR. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Decided
25 August 2003
Judges listed
V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 994 · 2003 INSC 420

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay Condoned.

p. 995, margin A

By means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenged Sections 2 and 7 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 (for short "the Act") and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules"). The petition was dismissed by the Orissa High Court. It is against the said order and judgment, the petitioners are before us by means of this special leave petition.

p. 995, margin B

It may be noted that this Act has been held to be a valid piece or legislation by this Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR ( 1977) SC 908 wherein it has been held as under :

p. 995, margin C

"19. We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word 'propagate' has been used in Article 25 (I), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25 (I) guarantees "freedom of conscience" to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion,· and that, in tum, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of religion, that would impinge on the "freedom of conscience" guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike."

p. 995, margin D

Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, it was observed that " ...... What is freedom for one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any pel"Son to one's own religion."

p. 995, margin F

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, before us sought to assail sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules which has been inserted by a Notification No. 63286 dated 26.11.1999. The impugned judgment does not show that the vi res of the aforementioned provision was specifically mooted. Before the High Court, the principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that the said Rules are ultra vires the rule-making power conta.ined in Section 7 of the Act. The High Court has dealt with the matter in paragraph 5 of its judgment. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the petitioners before the High Court, but we do not find any specific ground questioning the said Rule other than mentioned hereinbefore was raised before the High Court. Furthermore, the question as to whether a rule is ultra vires or not, must be adjudged having regard to public order in mind. Had such a contention been raised, the State would have justified the making of the order, inter a/ia, o~ the ground· of maintenance of public order. Such <;:ontention therefore, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court. · .

pp. 995–996, margin G

Merely because an inquiry is contemplated under Rule 5, it does not ipso facto make the Rule invalid. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the special leave petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 996, margin C