Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU
Recent public controversies, like religious practices in airports and loudspeaker disputes at religious sites, highlight the ongoing tension between devotional expression and the secular nature of public life.
|
Read all about: Essential Part of Religion l SC Verdict on Religious Conversion l Forced Religious Conversions l Supreme Court on Worship Act 1991 |
The Constitution grants robust rights to religious freedom, balanced with the State's power to impose reasonable restrictions.
Article 25(1): Guarantees all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion.
Article 26: Grants every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes and manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
Reasonable Restrictions
The rights are not absolute. They are subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights.
Article 25(2) allows the state to regulate secular activities (economic, financial, political) associated with religious practices.
|
Indian Secularism Unlike the Western model of strict separation, India follows a model of 'principled distance'. The State has no official religion and treats all equally but can intervene in religious matters to uphold constitutional values and ensure social reform. |
While public devotion is a part of India's social fabric, several factors have heightened friction in recent years, leading to challenges.
Communal Tensions and Violence: Public religious expressions have become flashpoints for communal friction.
Civic Disruption and Public Inconvenience: Large-scale religious events often disrupt public life.
Competitive Religiosity and Politicization: Devotional acts are transformed into displays of communal strength, provoking competitive reactions from other communities and sharpening social divisions.
The judiciary has mediated the conflict between religious freedom and public order through key legal doctrines and landmark judgments.
The 'Essential Religious Practices' (ERP) Test
Evolved by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), this doctrine allows courts to determine if a practice is "essential" or "integral" to a religion.
Only practices deemed essential by the court receive constitutional protection under Article 25, while secular or non-essential aspects can be regulated by the state.
|
Case Name (Year) |
Core Issue |
Principle/Judgment |
|
Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta vs Commissioner of Police (1983 & 2004) |
Tandava dance with skulls and daggers in public by the Anand Margi sect. |
The Supreme Court ruled that the Tandava dance was not an essential practice of the Anand Margi faith and could be prohibited on grounds of public order and morality. |
|
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018) |
Ban on women of menstruating age (10-50 years) entering the Sabarimala temple. |
The Court held that the practice was a form of gender discrimination violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 25. It affirmed that "devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination" and prioritized constitutional morality over religious custom. |
|
Judgments on Loudspeakers |
Use of loudspeakers for Azaan (call to prayer) and other religious events. |
High Courts and the Supreme Court have consistently held that while Azaan is an integral part of Islam, the use of loudspeakers is not. Its use is subject to the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, and cannot violate others' right to peace. |
Managing large religious gatherings poses a challenge for state governments, requiring a balance of facilitation and regulation.
The Kanwar Yatra (2024): The Supreme Court stayed a Uttar Pradesh government directive that required eateries on the yatra route to display owners' names. The Court ruled that while food type (veg/non-veg) could be required, forcing name display was discriminatory.
Hathras Stampede (2024): A stampede at a religious gathering in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, resulted in 121 deaths. The event drew an estimated 250,000 people, far surpassing the permitted 80,000 capacity, exposing failures in crowd management and administrative preparedness for large religious events.
Completely avoiding public celebrations is neither constitutionally feasible nor socially desirable. The path forward lies in fair regulation, civic responsibility, and proactive governance.
Uniform and Non-discriminatory Regulation: Laws concerning noise pollution and the use of public spaces must be applied uniformly across all communities without bias.
Strengthening Civic Dialogue: Local-level peace committees and inter-faith forums should be promoted to build consensus on the use of shared public spaces, procession routes, and timings.
Emphasis on Constitutional Duties: Citizens must be reminded of their Fundamental Duties under Article 51A, mainly the duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.
Proactive Administrative Planning: Civic authorities must engage with religious leaders and event organizers in advance to plan logistics, minimize public disruption, and ensure strict compliance with safety norms and laws.
India must manage religious expression in public life to prevent social conflict, civil disorder, and the violation of others' rights. This requires a commitment from both the government and citizens to the constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and public order.
Source: THE HINDU
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Discuss the constitutional and societal implications of regulating public expressions of devotion in a diverse country like India. 150 words |
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions on the grounds of "public order, morality, and health," as well as other Fundamental Rights.
It is a judicial doctrine used to determine if a religious practice is "essential" or "integral" to a religion. Only practices deemed essential by the court receive constitutional protection under Article 25. The state is permitted to regulate or prohibit practices that are considered non-essential or secular in nature.
The Western model typically advocates for a strict separation between state and religion. In contrast, Indian secularism adopts a 'principled distance' approach. This means the state has no official religion and maintains a neutral stance, but it reserves the right to intervene in religious matters to uphold constitutional values like equality and to enact social reforms.
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved