Gist of Daily Articles: Daily Mains Qn/Model Answer/Mains Concise Note

The recent observations by the Supreme Court regarding the Sabarimala review petitions touch upon the delicate balance between religious autonomy and constitutional morality. Below is a comprehensive analysis of the issues, observations, and legal framework surrounding this matter.

1. Key Issues Involved:

• Judicial Review vs. Religious Freedom: Whether the judiciary has the authority to test the “rationality” of deeply held religious beliefs.

• Locus Standi of Non-Believers: Whether a person who does not follow a specific faith (a non-believer) has the right to challenge the practices of that faith in court.

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP): The extent to which the court can determine what constitutes an “essential” part of a religion.

• Constitutional Morality vs. Religious Morality: Which should prevail when a religious practice appears to violate fundamental rights (like equality).

2. Supreme Court’s Key Observations:

• Rationality and Belief: The Court noted that for a believer, faith is often beyond logic. However, it questioned if a court can apply a “rationality test” to a practice, especially when the challenge comes from someone outside that faith.

• Judicial Impartiality: The Court emphasized that judges must set aside their personal religious leanings and be guided strictly by the “Freedom of Conscience” and the constitutional framework.

• Denominational Scrutiny: The Court clarified that religious denominations are not exempt from judicial scrutiny if their practices infringe upon the rights of individuals.

3. Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 14: Right to Equality (used to challenge practices that discriminate against women).

• Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. (Note: This is subject to public order, morality, and health).

• Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs (protects religious denominations).

4. Relevant Case Laws:

• Sabarimala Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018): The original judgement that allowed women of all ages to enter the temple, citing that “devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.”

• Shirur Mutt Case (1954): This case originated the “Essential Religious Practices” doctrine, stating that the court will protect only those practices that are integral to the religion.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: Established that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, implying that religious practices must align with secular constitutional values.

5. Challenges:

• Subjectivity of “Essentiality”: Critics argue that secular judges are not equipped to decide what is “essential” to a religion; this should be left to religious heads.

• Social Friction: Judicial interference in age-old traditions often leads to massive public protests and a sense of “judicial overreach” among believers.

• Conflict of Rights: A direct clash between Article 25 (individual right to worship) and Article 26 (group right to manage internal affairs).

6. Suggestions and Reforms:

• The “Anti-Exclusion” Test: Instead of looking at “essentiality,” courts should look at whether a practice excludes a certain group (like women or Dalits) from the social mainstream.

• Constitutional Morality: The judiciary should continue to prioritize the values of dignity and equality over traditional practices that are exclusionary.

• Internal Reform: Encouraging religious institutions to evolve internally rather than waiting for “top-down” judicial mandates.

7. Way Forward:

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer these questions to a larger bench (the “9-Judge Bench”) is a step toward creating a permanent “Constitutional Roadmap” for religion.

• Clarifying Locus Standi: The court needs to define who can file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in matters of faith.

• Harmonious Construction: There must be a balance where religious autonomy is respected, but not at the cost of “Untouchability” (Article 17) or gender discrimination.

• Secularism in Practice: The judiciary must remain a “neutral umpire” that protects the rights of the minority/individual against the tyranny of the majority or tradition.