New Delhi, March 31
Upholding the Karnataka Government’s ban on VHP leader Pravin Togadia with regard to attending a fuction at Mangalore last year for reason that his visit would disturb communal harmony, the Supreme Court in a significant ruling said today that no person, however high he may be, could be allowed to destroy the secular fabrics of the country.

“No person, however, big he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed, irrespective of the position he may assume to hold in public life, to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the Constitution,” a Bench comprising Mr Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat said.

Allowing the state government’s appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s judgement quashing the order of Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Dakshin Karnataka, banning Mr Togadia’s entry to the area for 15 days from February 10, 2003, to attend a religious function, the Bench said courts should not normally interfere with the matter of law and order, which was primarily the domain of administrative authority concerned.

The ADM in his prohibitory order under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure had banned Mr Togadia’s entry on the ground that the district had become communally sensitive and had witnessed several clashes since 1988, in which many persons had lost lives. Mr Togadia had moved the Karnataka High Court against the ban order.

Setting aside the high court order, the apex court said “secularism is not to be confused with communal or religious concepts of an individual or a group of persons. It means that the State should have no religion of its own and no one could proclaim to make the State have one such or endeavour to create a theocratic state.”

The apex court said a right balance had to be maintained between the valuable right of freedom of expression and speech and maintenance of law and order. “At times freedom of expression may have to be subjected to reasonable subordination of social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very chore of democratic life, preservation of public order and rule of law,” it observed.