[Case Study] Aum Shinrikyo Dissolution Order Case (Can a religious corporation be ordered to dissolve? / Freedom of religion and public welfare)

Basic Information

Supreme Court, January 30, 1996, First Petty Bench Decision
(1996 (Ku) No. 8: Special appeal case against the decision dismissing the appeal against the religious corporation dissolution order)
(Minshu Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 199)

Summary of Facts

The appellant (Aum Shinrikyo) was a religious organization that had been granted legal personality under the Religious Corporations Act.

According to the facts established by the lower court, the grounds for the dissolution order included the fact that the representative, D (Chizuo Matsumoto, also known as Shoko Asahara), and executives acting under his instructions had used multiple followers, the cult's funds, and facilities to plan and systematically manufacture sarin gas.

This act was judged to fall under Article 81, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Religious Corporations Act as an "act clearly recognized as violating laws and regulations and significantly harming public welfare," and under the first part of Item 2 of the same paragraph as an "act that significantly deviates from the purpose of a religious organization."

The first instance court decided on a dissolution order, and the second instance court supported the first instance and dismissed the immediate appeal. Consequently, a special appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, arguing that this decision violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution.

Judgment

Appeal dismissed

The full text of the Supreme Court decision can be searched here. (Please enter "1996 (Ku) No. 8" for the case number.)

Explanation

This is a trial regarding the dissolution order for Aum Shinrikyo, which caused numerous heinous crimes such as the Tokyo subway sarin attack. The main issues were public welfare and freedom of religion. The points of contention are as follows:

1. Whether the dissolution order infringes upon the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution
2. Whether the requirements for a dissolution order have been met
3. Whether there were any other violations of laws or regulations in the lower court's decision

We will explain starting from 1.

1. Whether the dissolution order infringes upon the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution

The appellant argued that the dissolution order restricts the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court judged the dissolution order to be constitutional, citing the following reasons:

1. Because the regulation under the Religious Corporations Act "is not intended to interfere with the spiritual or religious aspects of religious organizations or believers", and the purpose of the regulation is reasonable.

2. Because the dissolution order under the Religious Corporations Act is merely the deprivation of legal personality and "does not involve any legal effect that prohibits or restricts the religious acts of believers".

3. Even if the religious organization's assets and the like are disposed of due to a dissolution order, it does not particularly affect the faith of the believers themselves, and even if there is an impediment, it is because "the impediment is merely indirect and de facto, accompanying the dissolution order."

4. Because the appellant was systematically manufacturing sarin, and the dissolution order as a corporation is "a necessary and unavoidable legal regulation to deal with the appellant's actions."

(2) Whether the requirements for a dissolution order are met

The dispute was whether or not it fell under Article 81, Paragraph 1, Item 1 and the first part of Item 2 of the Religious Corporations Act.

The court of prior instance recognized that the religious organization had "planned to mass-produce sarin, a poison gas, for the purpose of mass murder" and had "systematically and organizationally produced sarin."

The Supreme Court ruled that this act "is clearly recognized as violating laws and regulations and significantly harming public welfare, and it is clear that it committed an act that significantly deviated from the purpose of a religious organization," decided on the dissolution order, and judged that depriving it of its legal personality was "necessary and appropriate."

(3) Whether there were any other violations of laws or regulations in the prior instance

The appellant argued that there were other violations of laws and regulations in the prior instance, but the Supreme Court judged that since no "violations of the Constitution" or the like were observed, they did not constitute grounds for appeal.

The Supreme Court decided by unanimous opinion of all justices to "dismiss this appeal," and the dissolution order against Aum Shinrikyo was finalized.

*Text in "" is quoted from the decision.

References

• Supreme Court Decision (1996 (Ku) No. 8)

A request to everyone

Form for readers: Form for readers of "Hogaku no Yoridokoro" – Fill out the form
We also welcome your impressions of the articles and requests for "I would like you to explain this theme." Please also use this form to point out any errors. Also, I have opened a note question box. (Link:

https://note.com/qa/hogakuyoridokoro) I am accepting questions here as well. It would be encouraging if you could send even trivial questions. On my X account (

https://x.com/hogakuyoridokor), I will distribute article update information and trivia about law. Please be sure to follow me.

Related articles

Other case law analysis articles are summarized in a list here.