Vijaya Kumar v Attorney-General: Challenge to Music Ban During Thaipusam Procession Based on Religious Freedom and Equality
In Vijaya Kumar s/o Rajendran and others v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 244, the High Court of Singapore dismissed an originating summons brought by Vijaya Kumar, Balasubramaniam, and Sathiyamoorthy, members of the Hindu community, against the Attorney-General. The applicants sought to quash the enforcement of a 'music ban' during the 2015 Thaipusam procession and to mandate the allowance of musical instruments in future processions, arguing that the ban infringed upon their constitutional rights to religious freedom and equality. Tay Yong Kwang J found no ground for relief in judicial review, holding that the restrictions were justified due to public order concerns and did not violate Articles 12 or 15 of the Constitution. The court ordered the applicants to pay costs to the respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed an application by Hindu devotees to quash the music ban during the Thaipusam procession, citing public order concerns and no constitutional breach.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Adrian Loo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ailene Chou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers David Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| VIJAYA KUMAR S/O RAJENDRAN | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| BALASUBRAMANIAM | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| SATHIYAMOORTHY S/O MURUGIAH | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Loo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ailene Chou | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elaine Liew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| David Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The applicants, as members of the Hindu community, participated in the 2015 Thaipusam procession.
- The police imposed a 'music ban' on the 2015 Thaipusam procession, restricting the playing of musical instruments.
- The applicants sought to quash the music ban and compel the police to allow musical instruments in future processions.
- The police cited public order concerns, including potential communal disturbance and traffic congestion, as justification for the music ban.
- The Thaipusam procession involves thousands of devotees and spectators along a 3km route.
- The procession route is close to multiple places of worship of different religions.
- The police have made incremental adjustments to the music policy over time, allowing religious hymns and music points.
5. Formal Citations
- Vijaya Kumar s/o Rajendran and others v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 394 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 244
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple applied for a permit to hold the 2015 Thaipusam procession. | |
| Police granted permission for the 2015 Thaipusam procession subject to conditions. | |
| The 2015 Thaipusam procession took place. | |
| Applicants commenced application. | |
| Tan Sri Datuk R Nadarajah filed an affidavit. | |
| Applicants appealed against the whole decision. | |
| Attorney-General appealed against part of the decision. | |
| High Court dismissed the application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Freedom of Religion
- Outcome: The court held that the restriction on music during the Thaipusam procession was a justified derogation from Article 15(1) due to public order concerns.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Restriction of religious practice
- Balancing religious freedom with public order
- Equality Before the Law
- Outcome: The court held that there was no deliberate and arbitrary discrimination in imposing music conditions on the Thaipusam procession but not on other parades.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Discrimination
- Unequal treatment of religious groups
- Irrationality in Administrative Decision-Making
- Outcome: The court held that the police's decision was not irrational as it was based on legitimate public order considerations.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Taking into account irrelevant considerations
- Failure to consider relevant factors
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court found that the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter on the ground that they professed to be Hindus.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order to quash the enforcement of the music ban
- Quashing Order to quash the Government's policy of continued imposition of the music ban
- Mandatory Order to mandate the Commissioner to authorise the playing of musical instruments
- Declaration that the music ban is ultra vires the Public Order Act and the Public Order Regulations
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 15 of the Constitution (Freedom of Religion)
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution (Equality Before the Law)
- Irrationality in administrative decision-making
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that before leave is granted, the court must be satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint is susceptible to judicial review, that the applicants have sufficient interest in the matter and that the material before the court discloses an arguable case or a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the remedies sought by the applicant. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the Wednesbury test for irrationality in judicial review. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold to establish an arguable case or a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion. |
| Tan Boon Liat v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia and others | High Court | Yes | [1976] 2 MLJ 83 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of 'public order'. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the concept of public order was not dissimilar to the notion of public peace, welfare and good order in s 24(1)(a) of the Societies Act. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equality before the law and equal protection of the law require that like be compared with like. |
| Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the State is entitled to differentiate between persons and their constitutional rights in the application of the law. |
| Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the equal protection clause is contravened by a deliberate and arbitrary discrimination against a particular person. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ang Soon Huat | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that arbitrariness implies the lack of any rationality. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 1 AC 374 | United Kingdom | Cited for the threshold for judicial intervention on the ground of irrationality. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 40A r 3(2) of the ROC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Thaipusam procession
- Music ban
- Public order
- Religious freedom
- Equality before the law
- Judicial review
- Hindu community
- Article 15
- Article 12
- Irrationality
- Locus standi
15.2 Keywords
- Thaipusam
- Music Ban
- Religious Freedom
- Public Order
- Judicial Review
- Singapore
- Constitution
- Hindu
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 85 |
| Freedom of Religion | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 70 |
| Public Order | 65 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Criminal Revision | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights
- Religious Processions
- Freedom of Religion
- Public Order