Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has observed that removing dharma from public life would amount to “stripping the country of its soul,” while setting aside a decision that denied permission for a religious-cultural event in the city.
Court overturns denial for Sankey Tank event
The ruling came after the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) and the Bengaluru West City Corporation refused permission to the Malleshwaram Brahmana Sabha Trust to conduct a Sri Shankaracharya Jayanti celebration at Sankey Tank Park.
Authorities had rejected the request on the grounds that public auditoriums should not be used for religious or political events.
However, Justice M.I. Arun quashed the decision, terming it “unreasonable and arbitrary,” and emphasised the deep-rooted connection between Indian culture and dharma.
‘Dharma integral to Indian civilisation’
In its observations, the Karnataka High Court noted that India’s civilisational identity is closely linked with its cultural and dharmic traditions.
“The greatness of Indian civilisation is intertwined with its dharmic and cultural activities, and removing it amounts to removing the soul from the country,” the court remarked.
The bench stressed that cultural expressions rooted in dharma cannot be dismissed as unconstitutional, especially when they form a core part of societal heritage.
Secularism does not bar cultural events
Addressing concerns about secularism, the court clarified that India being a secular nation does not imply a ban on religious or cultural activities in public spaces.
It pointed out that the Constitution itself reflects India’s cultural diversity and heritage, referencing depictions and influences from texts and figures such as the Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Gautama Buddha, and Mahavira.
The court added that promoting positive cultural values rooted in dharma contributes to societal well-being and should not be restricted without valid legal grounds.
Shankaracharya Jayanti termed cultural and dharmic
The bench also highlighted the significance of Adi Shankaracharya, describing him as one of India’s most revered spiritual figures.
It noted that the celebration of Sri Shankaracharya Jayanti holds both religious and cultural importance, particularly due to the philosopher’s contribution to Advaita Vedanta, one of the country’s prominent philosophical traditions.
‘What is not prohibited is permitted’
In its ruling, the court reiterated the principle that any activity not expressly prohibited by law should be considered permissible.
It concluded that the denial of permission lacked sufficient legal basis and failed to recognise the broader cultural context of the event.
Conclusion
The judgment by the Karnataka High Court reinforces the role of cultural and dharmic traditions within India’s constitutional framework. By setting aside the denial, the court has underlined the balance between secular governance and the preservation of cultural heritage.