Madras High Court Restrains Nama Sankeerthanam in Residential Area Without Collector’s Permission

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh remarked: “It is time people understand that peace is the best prayer, and silence the greatest prayer.”

On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, the Madras High Court stated that music which may be divine to some can be a disturbance to others. Accordingly, the court ruled that Nama Sankeerthanam (congregational chanting of the names of Hindu deities) cannot be held in any residential house without prior permission from the District Collector.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasized that the law must apply equally to all, and no religious group can use such premises for collective prayer without the Collector’s approval. He said, “Peace is the best prayer, and silence is the greatest prayer. The day people understand this truth, they will not disturb others with loud and noisy modes of worship.”

This observation was made during the hearing of a petition filed by Prakash Ramachandran, a resident of Krishnamachari Street in Radha Nagar, Chromepet, Chengalpattu district. The petitioner had complained that a private organization named Global Organisation for Divinity (GOD) had opened its office in the residential house of his neighbor, T.S. Subramanian, and was conducting Nama Sankeerthanam regularly, causing disturbance to other residents in the area.

In response, the private respondents submitted a counter affidavit stating that they had the consent of all other neighbors and that their religious rights were protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Freedom of Religion).

The respondents also argued that chanting God’s names brought mental peace and served as a remedy to sorrow and suffering. However, the judge clearly stated that any form of prayer should remain confined within the four walls of a house and must not cause inconvenience to others.

He also clarified that it is not necessary for all residents of a locality to approach the court with complaints; a single complaint is sufficient if it points to a public nuisance.

Referring to an earlier order he had passed restricting Christian congregational prayers in residential houses in Kanyakumari district without the Collector’s permission, Justice Venkatesh noted:

“The same rule will apply here as well. Except for the name of God, everything else is the same. So how can you conduct Nama Sankeerthanam without the Collector’s nod?”

When the counsel representing the respondents stated that their clients had already submitted a request to the Chengalpattu Collector seeking permission, the court ordered that no Nama Sankeerthanam shall be held in the residential locality until permission is granted.

Additionally, the Inspector of Chitlapakkam Police Station was directed to ensure strict and sincere compliance with the court’s order, both in letter and in spirit.

Question-Answer Based on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution:

 Question:
Does the restriction imposed by the Madras High Court on Nama Sankeerthanam violate Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?

 Answer (According to Article 25) : No, the restriction imposed by the Madras High Court on conducting Nama Sankeerthanam in a residential area without the Collector’s permission does not violate Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution grants freedom of religion to all citizens.
This includes:

• The freedom to profess any religion
• The freedom to practice and propagate it

However, the same Article also allows for reasonable restrictions.

Article 25(1) is subject to:

"Public order, morality, and health"

This means that if any religious activity is harmful to public order, morality, or health,
the State (government or judiciary) can regulate or restrict it.

✅ Validity of the Court’s Decision:

• If Nama Sankeerthanam or any other religious activity:
  ➤ Creates excessive noise,
  ➤ Disturbs the peace of the neighborhood, or
  ➤ Violates residential regulations,
  then the court has the right to make administrative approval mandatory.
• This is not a curb on religious freedom, but a reasonable limitation imposed to maintain public order.

Conclusion:

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution grants freedom of religion to all citizens,
but this freedom is not absolute.

If a religious activity disturbs others' peace, health, or public order,
the State has the constitutional authority to regulate it through lawful means.

Therefore, the Madras High Court’s order is constitutional and justified.

UPSC-level essay on “Religious Freedom vs Public Peace: Article 25 and Judicial Boundaries”, approximately 1000 words:

Religious Freedom vs Public Peace: Article 25 and Judicial Boundaries
Introduction:
The Constitution of India grants every citizen the freedom of religion. This freedom not only allows individuals to believe in and practice their faith but also gives them the fundamental right to propagate and perform religious customs. However, when this religious freedom clashes with public peace, health, or the rights of other citizens, the need arises for the State and judiciary to intervene.

A recent ruling by the Madras High Court sparked national debate, where the court stated that religious gatherings such as “Naam Sankirtan” (devotional chanting) cannot be conducted in residential areas without prior permission from the district collector. This judgment has led to deeper reflection on the interpretation and limits of Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 25: The Core of Religious Freedom
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every individual the right to freedom of religion. It includes the following rights:

• The right to profess, practice, and propagate any religion;
• The right to perform religious rituals, individually or collectively;
• The right to follow religious teachings.

However, this freedom is not absolute. Article 25(1) clearly states that these rights are subject to public order, morality, and health.

This means that if a religious activity disrupts public peace or infringes upon the fundamental rights of others, the State or judiciary has the authority to regulate or even restrict it.

The Madras High Court Verdict: What Was the Case?
The case pertained to a residential area in Radha Nagar, Chengalpattu district, where a private organization named Global Organisation for Divinity (GOD) regularly conducted “Naam Sankirtan” in their office premises. A resident, Prakash Ramachandran, filed a complaint stating that the event disrupted the peace and routine of the neighborhood.

During the hearing, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh remarked:

“Silence is the greatest prayer and peace is the highest form of worship. Causing discomfort to others in the name of religion is against the core tenets of any faith.”

He ordered that such religious gatherings cannot be permitted in residential areas without the collector's approval. Additionally, he directed the police to enforce this order.

Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Balance
This ruling highlighted that no fundamental right is absolute. Every right comes with responsibilities and limits. The judiciary's role is not just to protect individual freedoms but also to maintain a balance between freedom and order.

• If a religious event interferes with others’ sleep, studies, work, or health, it can be considered a violation of public order.
• The claim that “we are spreading peace through God's name” is valid only as long as it does not disturb the peace of others.

Secularism and the Neutral Role of the State
India's Constitution is secular. This means that the State neither promotes nor opposes any religion, but treats all religions equally.

The court emphasized this neutrality by stating that similar restrictions had earlier been imposed on Christian prayer gatherings as well. The judge said:

“God may have different names, but the law is the same for all.”

This underscores that no religious group—majority or minority—is entitled to special privileges in the name of religion.

Collective Prayer vs Right to Privacy
Public or collective religious activities may sometimes clash with other fundamental rights, such as:

• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty;
• Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression;
• Article 14 – Right to equality.

If a religious event interferes with a citizen’s personal peace or privacy, it creates a constitutional conflict. In such cases, the judiciary must apply the principle of “balancing of interests.”

Social Perspective: Religious Tolerance vs Religious Aggression
Indian society is deeply diverse — with a multitude of castes, religions, languages, and cultures.

In such a pluralistic society, religious tolerance and mutual respect are essential democratic values. When a religious activity shifts from private to public space, it must be exercised with sensitivity.
What is sacred to one person may be noise, inconvenience, or mental stress for another.

Harmony between devotion and discipline is the key to societal stability.

Conclusion:
The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens, but this freedom is subject to public order and the rights of others.

The Madras High Court’s decision serves as a reminder that when religious freedom infringes upon personal peace or public order, judicial intervention becomes necessary.

In a democratic and plural society, individuals must not only know their rights but also respect the rights of others.

“The best way to worship God is — not to disturb the peace of others.”