Hrishikesh Roy, A.C.J. - The petitioner is a practising Christian and has filed this case with the following prayers:

"i. Declare that compulsory confession is unconstitutional.

ii. Declare that confession cannot be made condition precedent for any of the spiritual and temporal rights of the member of a Christian church and denial of any such right amount to denial of his fundamental right.

iii. Declare that confession is a private act and non-voluntary confession, arising out of implied or expressed the compulsion, what so ever it may be, shall amount to deprivation of the right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.

iv. Declare that no sanction or any other penal action shall be taken against any person on the ground of non-performance of confession by churches of Christian faith.

v. To grant such relief sought during hearing and to pass such other orders this Honourable Court may deem fit."

2. The petitioner contends that the sacramental confession as a condition precedent for fulfilling the spiritual and temporal needs of a Christian, violates the petitioners right of privacy and his guaranteed rights under Article 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution of India. He submits that imposing of implied or expressed compulsion on a member of the church to confess the sins before the priest, is nothing but infringement of the right to privacy.

3. The respondents 3 to 7 churches are generally known as apostolic churches, having their own constitution and set of laws to regulate the temporal and spiritual activities of the church, but they all follow and believe in Jesus Christ. The utmost aim of the Christian Church is the spiritual fulfillment of its laity. The respondents 3 to 5 are Catholic churches in India, who have the Pope as the Superior Head. They function as per the Code of Canon Law. On the other hand, the respondent 4 and 5 churches function under the Code of Canons of Eastern Churches (Oriental Law). The relevant pages of the Code of Canon Law is marked as Ext.P1 and that of the oriental law as Ext.P2, in the proceedings.

4. Sri.Joji George Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sacrament of confession for absolvation of sin requires a believer to confess before a priest. It is obligatory for the faithful to confess his sins and it is deemed to be the only way to get absolution and to reconcile with God and the Church. Only when such confession is absolute, the sinner is relieved of his sin by the priest. The counsel argues that the sin of a person is a private affair and therefore, a believer must not be forced to confess his sin before the priest or face deprivation of his spiritual and religious expectation if confessions are not made by a faithful. He submits that such forceful confession oriented by the churches, impacts the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioner projects that, a member of the respondent churches, who has not turned up for confession before a priest has to live in apprehension that, their spiritual and temporal needs will be denied by the Church whenever he is in want of that. At most times, a member will be in want of such spiritual needs in the most worrisome situation of life. The threat of undeclared sanction by church and isolation from the society in which he lives creates a feeling of fear in the mind of those members. This menace of getting himself and his family into trouble will emotionally compel a member to go and perform the confession before a priest. This is nothing else, but deprival of his Right to Privacy and violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

5. The petitioner projects that he was a born Christian and he is a member of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Devalokam, Kottayam (Respondent No.6) and he must be permitted to continue to be a member of the said church without being forced to confess the sins. The counsel refers to the ratio in Justice K.S.Puttuswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2017/1233] to argue that confession of sins expected by the church violates the petitioners right of privacy which is a core freedom and is part of liberty of an individual within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution and forced confession infringes his constitutional rights, the prayers made in the petition be granted.

6. We have noted the contentions made by the petitioners. The Preamble of the Constitution of India grants liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and there is no compulsion on anyone to follow a particular mode of faith or worship. In the context of the words faith and worship, the ideals of the Preamble find expression in Article 25, which deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Such right is subject to public order, morality and faith and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. In other words, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and right and have the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion. Coupled with the fundamental right of privacy that the petitioner canvasses, he also enjoys the right of freedom to practice and propagate any religion of his choice and nothing binds anyone under the laws of our country, to practice any particular faith or religion.

7. The case of the petitioner, as discernible from the submissions of his counsel, is that by virtue of his birth into a family that owes allegiance to the 6th respondent church, he is a member of the said church and is obliged to adhere to the rituals and practices prescribed by the church, for attaining spiritual salvation. The sacrament of confession is stated to be one such ritual by which members of the church believe they will be restored with Gods grace. The belief is that confession reconciles a person to God in that through confession, one acknowledges his/her sins, repents for them and asks God for forgiveness. Through this ritual, which is conducted through a priest before whom the confession is made, grace is restored to ones soul so that he/she can thereafter resist sin. The catholic believes that the sacrament confers the graces that helps one to live the christian life and it is therefore essential that he receives it at least once in a year. Moreover, it is also believed that the sacrament of confession was instituted by Christ as the proper form of forgiveness for ones sins.

8. By expressing his disenchantment with the said practice/ritual, the petitioner no doubt indicates that he does not want to adhere to the said ritual. He does not, however, want to part with his membership of the Church since that, according to him, would deprive him of certain rights/privileges such as a right to be buried in a particular cemetery or the right to have his children baptised in the church. While we sympathise with the peculiar dilemma faced by the petitioner, we are unable to attribute his predicament to the violation of any right that has accrued to him, under the Constitution.

9. Our Constitution, through its preamble, proclaims liberty of thought, action, belief, faith and worship as cherished concepts, that are guaranteed to all persons through Articles 25 and 26 thereof. It is through the exercise of these very liberties, that the petitioner chose to be a member of the 6th respondent Church, or to continue to be one. His actions were also in accordance with the exercise of his fundamental right to choose the religion that he wanted to adopt. Having done so, he cannot be heard to say that his continuance as a member of the Church is on account of any compulsion that is imposed on him. Just as he had a choice to embrace the religion or any facet of it, he has a choice to leave it for another. His dilemma is one that stems from his uncertainty as to the path he must pursue for spiritual salvation. That is a dilemma that cannot be resolved through legal proceedings, much less through these proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Ours is a secular country which permits all citizens to have their freedom of expression and belief, faith and worship and the laws of the country does not compel anyone to choose any particular religion, in preference to another. We can also take notice of the fact that even among those professing Christian religion, the practice of confession is not universal but the episcopal churches have the practice of confession directly to the priest. In fact, it is pointed out to us that the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, who are arrayed here as the 7th respondent, do not have the practice of confession to the priest and in fact, sins can be absolved through intercessional prayer.

11. That apart we cannot overlook the fact that the respondent churches also have the constitutionally guaranteed rights under Article 26, to manage their religious affairs and it would, therefore, be highly improper for the Court to intervene and declare that confession cannot be made a condition precedent, for enjoyment of any of the spiritual and temporal rights of the member of a Christian church and denial of any such right would thus amount to denial of fundamental right. Therefore, such intervention is found to be constitutionally impermissible.

12. The above discussion makes us sure that no constitutional right of the petitioner much less any fundamental right, is affected by his choice of religion. Consequently, no relief can be granted to him on the contentions advanced before us. With such conclusion, the writ petition is dismissed.