Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

9 judges, 7 questions—The high stakes of the Sabarimala reference case

India is the only country that can protect Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain traditions, when there are scores of countries that can protect Islam and Christianity. It is India’s duty to protect Indic faiths.

It is interesting that even as a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is examining the scope of two fundamental rights under articles 25 and 26, we are witnessing repeated Hindu anger against conversions and the targeting of Hindu religious symbols (two cases in point are Tata Consultancy Services and Lenskart), all of which article 25 directly or indirectly protects.

From a Hindu or Dharmic perspective (the term Dharmic is being used here to include all India-origin religions, including Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism among others), the question that really needs to be examined is whether articles 25 and 26 unfairly target only Hindu practices. And also whether the freedoms conferred under these two articles, and also articles 27, 28, 29 and 30, deny Hindus equal rights.

This is what article 25 has to say:

“(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the state from making any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”

If you have not already spotted the problem, you couldn’t care less, or that you think this subtle anti-Hindu tilt is well deserved. After promising that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience in clause (1), clause (2) says that the state can intervene whenever it deems fit in Hindu affairs. And in Explanation I, it intervenes to give Sikhs specific rights to carry a kirpan. The negative intervention is only for Hindus, the positive one for Sikhs.

“Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.”

And yet, nothing less than 1,00,000 temples are under state control in the five southern states, and the judiciary has not bothered to act except in specified cases. If the state has no........

© ThePrint