• UGI USER
  • Jul 07, 2024
  • 9 Likes
  • 0 Comments

SPIRITUAL ORIENTATION, RELIGIOUS PRACTICES AND COURTS

SYLLABUS:

GS 2:

  • Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Focus:

  • In a significant yet controversial order in P. Navin Kumar (2024), by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, the religious practice of angapradakshinam has been allowed.
Source: Bar Bench

Religion and spirituality are integral to human societal existence, often intersecting with legal and constitutional frameworks. The Indian judiciary frequently navigates these intersections, determining the essentiality and legality of various religious practices. This dynamic is highlighted in notable cases, reflecting the complexities of balancing religious freedom with public order, health, and morality.

Spiritual Orientation

  1. Personal Expression: Individuals have the right to express their spiritual beliefs and practices in ways they deem fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. The right to spiritual expression is recognized under various legal frameworks and often intersects with personal freedoms and rights.
  2. Article 21 and 19(1)(d): The Indian Constitution encompasses the right to privacy (Article 21) and freedom of movement (Article 19(1)(d)). These rights have been interpreted to include the freedom to practice and express one’s spirituality. Justice Swaminathan, in a significant judgment, extended these articles to support the practice of angapradakshinam, a religious ritual, underlining the broad scope of these constitutional provisions.
  3. Role of Judiciary: The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting spiritual practices, determining their essentiality within the context of constitutional rights. Courts have often had to balance individual spiritual expressions with broader societal norms and constitutional values, making their role pivotal in such matters.
  4. Case Precedents: Previous court rulings, such as the Sri Shirur Mutt case (1954), have set significant precedents for interpreting spiritual practices. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court emphasized that Article 25 guarantees freedom not only to entertain religious beliefs but also to exhibit such beliefs through appropriate practices and rituals.
  5. Public vs. Private: The distinction between public and private expression of spiritual orientation is crucial in legal interpretations and rulings. While individuals may have the right to private spiritual practices, public expressions may be subject to additional scrutiny to ensure they do not conflict with public order, health, and morality.

Religious Practices

  1. Angapradakshinam: This practice involves rolling over banana leaves used by devotees, and its legality has been contested in courts. Justice Swaminathan’s ruling allowed this practice, highlighting the complex interplay between tradition, religious freedom, and legal oversight.
  2. Essential Practices Doctrine: The judiciary often determines whether a practice is essential to a religion, impacting its legal protection. This doctrine has been a cornerstone in numerous cases, with courts assessing whether a practice is fundamental to a religion or merely a customary addition.
  3. Public Order, Health, and Morality: Religious practices are subject to considerations of public order, health, and morality. The state has the authority to regulate or restrict practices that conflict with these considerations, ensuring that public welfare is not compromised.
  4. Caste Discrimination Allegations: Practices like angapradakshinam have been challenged on grounds of caste discrimination. In 2015, a ruling by Justice S. Manikumar highlighted concerns that such practices involved Dalits and non-Brahmins in potentially discriminatory roles. However, subsequent rulings disputed these allegations, emphasizing the inclusive nature of the practices.
  5. Judicial Inconsistency: Courts have been inconsistent in their rulings on what constitutes essential religious practices, leading to varying interpretations. For instance, while some practices have been upheld as essential, others have been dismissed as superstitious or non-essential, reflecting the subjective nature of judicial interpretations.

Courts

  1. Judicial Notice: Courts may take judicial notice of established religious practices without strict evidence examination, as seen in the angapradakshinam case. This approach allows for a recognition of widely accepted practices without the need for extensive proof, streamlining judicial processes.
  2. Article 25: This article guarantees the freedom of religion, including the right to practice and propagate one’s religion. It is a cornerstone of religious freedom in India, providing a legal basis for protecting religious practices and beliefs.
  3. Supreme Court Judgments: The Supreme Court has a history of rulings that shape the interpretation of religious practices. Landmark cases such as Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) and Durgah Committee, Ajmer (1961) have set important precedents, influencing subsequent decisions and shaping the legal landscape of religious freedom.
  4. Role of Evidence: Courts sometimes rely on religious texts and historical practices to determine the essentiality of a practice. This reliance on textual and historical evidence aims to ground judicial decisions in the authentic traditions of the religion, providing a basis for distinguishing essential practices from non-essential ones.
  5. Public Health Concerns: Courts may consider the public health implications of religious practices, impacting their legal standing. Practices deemed to pose significant health risks can be restricted or regulated to protect public health, demonstrating the judiciary’s role in balancing religious freedom with public welfare.

Revival of Debate and Constitution

  1. Debate on Religion: The order in P. Navin Kumar (2024) has revived the debate on what constitutes religion and how essential practices are determined. It underscores the ongoing discussion about the boundaries of religious freedom and the role of the judiciary in defining these boundaries.
  2. Framers’ Intent: The framers of the Indian Constitution subordinated the freedom of religion to other fundamental rights, ensuring that religious practices do not undermine public order, health, or morality. This constitutional framework guides judicial decisions, emphasizing a balanced approach to religious freedom.
  3. Social Reforms: The state has the authority to bring in social reforms, even if they impact religious practices. This power has been used to address practices deemed discriminatory or harmful, reflecting the Constitution’s commitment to social justice.
  4. Empirical Evidence vs. Textual Evidence: Courts have sometimes prioritized empirical evidence of practice over religious texts, as seen in cases like Mohammed Fasi (1985). This approach can lead to varied interpretations of what constitutes essential practices, reflecting the complex nature of judicial determinations.
  5. Constitutional Supremacy: Ultimately, the Constitution is supreme. Judges should avoid becoming de facto clergy, determining purely theological issues. A progressive nation must ensure that even essential religious practices align with constitutional values, prioritizing the Constitution over religious doctrines.

Conclusion

In a progressive nation, the Constitution must remain supreme, guiding the interpretation and regulation of religious practices. Courts play a pivotal role in ensuring that religious freedoms are exercised within the bounds of public welfare and constitutional values. The ongoing debates and judicial decisions underscore the importance of this balance in fostering a just and equitable society.

The Doctrine of Essentiality

  1. Origin: The doctrine was established by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the ‘Shirur Mutt’ case in 1954.
  2. Definition of Religion: The court ruled that “religion” includes all rituals and practices integral to a religion.
  3. Court’s Role: The Supreme Court assumed the responsibility of determining which practices are essential and non-essential to a religion.
  4. Purpose: The essential religious practice test aims to protect only those religious practices deemed essential and integral to the religion.

Contentious Nature: This doctrine remains contentious due to the subjective nature of determining what constitutes an essential practice.

Source:The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

“What is religion to one is superstition to another,” said Chief Justice Latham of Australia in Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc vs Commonwealth (1943). Discuss the role of the judiciary in balancing religious freedom with constitutional values in India, with reference to recent and landmark judgments. Analyze the challenges and implications of the judiciary’s involvement in determining the essentiality of religious practices. (250 words)

Associated Articles:

https://universalinstitutions.com/human-dignity-versus-religious-practices/

https://universalinstitutions.com/what-do-you-mean-by-doctrine-of-essentiality-how-has-judiciary-used-this-doctrine-to-address-conflict-between-various-fundamental-rights-explain-with-examples/