## Facts

- Tsu City planned construction of a municipal gymnasium and held an official groundbreaking ceremony (jichinsai) in January 1965.
- The ceremony was performed in Shinto style by four Shinto priests; municipal employees served as ushers.
- The city spent ¥7,663 in public funds for honoraria and offerings connected to the ceremony.
- A city council member and taxpayer filed a resident (taxpayer) suit seeking a declaration that the expenditure was unlawful and reimbursement to the municipal treasury.
- The trial court upheld the expenditure as constitutional; the intermediate appellate court reversed, treating the ceremony as a Shinto religious rite barred by the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court (Grand Bench) reviewed the case on appeal by the mayor who authorized the expenditure.

## Issues

1. Whether the city’s sponsorship and funding of a Shinto-style jichinsai constituted prohibited “religious activity” by a state organ under Constitution art. 20(3).
2. Whether the expenditure violated Constitution art. 89’s restriction on use of public funds for religious organizations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate judgment and reinstated dismissal of the taxpayer’s claims.
- The Court held the ceremony, though Shinto in form, was not unconstitutional “religious activity” when evaluated objectively by its purpose and effect in social context.
- The Court concluded the small, one-time expenditure did not amount to constitutionally forbidden public financial support of religion.

## Legal Principles

- “Religious activity” under Constitution art. 20(3) is assessed by an objective purpose-and-effect inquiry considering all circumstances and social conventions, not merely outward form.
- State conduct is unconstitutional when its purpose is religious and its effect aids, encourages, or promotes a religion, or oppresses or interferes with religion.
- The constitutional separation of religion and state requires state neutrality, but does not require the state to avoid every contact with religiously rooted customs; only contacts exceeding acceptable limits in light of social and cultural conditions are prohibited.
- For art. 89, a public expenditure is unconstitutional when, in purpose and effect, it constitutes support for a religious organization’s religious activities; a modest, incidental payment connected to a customary event may fall outside the prohibition.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld Tsu City’s funding of a Shinto-style groundbreaking ceremony, reasoning that the event’s purpose was secular (construction safety and customary observance) and its effect did not meaningfully support or advance Shinto or burden other religions, and therefore it did not violate Constitution arts. 20(3) or 89.


Kakunaga v. Sekiguchi, 31 Minshū 4, at 533 (Sup. Ct. Japan 1977)