Article 2: Constitutional Morality vs Faith
Why in News: The Centre argued before the Supreme Court that public morality—not constitutional morality—should govern matters of faith, in the ongoing review of the Sabarimala Temple Entry case.
Key Details
- The Centre challenged the “essential religious practices (ERP) test”, calling it unworkable in India’s diverse religious context.
- Debate revolves around Articles 25 and 26, balancing religious freedom with equality and reform.
- The 2018 judgment allowed entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala temple.
- The issue is under review by a 9-judge Constitution Bench to settle broader constitutional questions.
Constitutional Provisions: Articles 25 & 26
- Freedom of Religion (Article 25): Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
- Denominational Rights (Article 26): Religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, including rituals and administration.
- Reasonable Restrictions: Both Articles are not absolute; the state can intervene for social reform and welfare, as seen in temple entry legislations.
- Judicial Interpretation: Courts have often balanced individual rights with group rights, making religious freedom a dynamic constitutional domain.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
- Origin in Shirur Mutt Case (1954): The Supreme Court held that only essential practices of a religion are protected under the Constitution.
- Judicial Determination Issue: Courts decide what constitutes “essential,” leading to criticism that judges are interpreting theology, not law.
- Centre’s Critique: The government argues ERP is inconsistent and impractical, especially in a country with vast religious diversity.
- Recent Developments: The current bench is reconsidering whether ERP should continue or be replaced with a more rights-based approach.
Public Morality vs Constitutional Morality
- Constitutional Morality: Refers to adherence to core constitutional values like equality, liberty, and dignity, as emphasized in several Supreme Court judgments.
- Public Morality (Centre’s View): Reflects societal values, traditions, and collective conscience, which may differ across regions and communities.
- Conflict in Practice: In the Sabarimala case, constitutional morality supported gender equality, while public morality was cited to justify traditional exclusion.
- Critical Debate: Over-reliance on public morality may risk majoritarianism, while strict constitutional morality may ignore cultural sensitivities.
Religious Denomination & Autonomy
- Definition Challenge: Determining what constitutes a “religious denomination” in India is complex due to plurality within religions.
- Sabarimala Issue: Whether Ayyappa devotees form a separate denomination affects their right to exclude certain groups.
- Legal Precedents: In the Venkataramana Devaru Case (1958), the Court allowed denominational control but restricted exclusion from temple entry.
- Balancing Autonomy & Equality: Absolute autonomy may lead to discrimination, while excessive state interference may violate religious freedom.
Gender Justice and Social Reform
- 2018 Judgment Significance: The Supreme Court struck down the ban on entry of women (10–50 years), terming it violative of equality (Article 14).
- Women’s Rights Perspective: The case is seen as a milestone for gender justice and dignity, challenging patriarchal norms in religious practices.
- Resistance and Protests: Implementation faced strong opposition, highlighting the gap between judicial decisions and societal acceptance.
- Broader Implication: Raises questions on how far the state should intervene in religious customs for social reform.
Contemporary Debate: Swadeshi Constitutional Interpretation
- Indigenous Jurisprudence Argument: The Centre advocated a “Swadeshi” approach, grounding interpretation in India’s civilizational ethos rather than Western principles.
- Pluralism and Diversity: India’s religious diversity makes uniform standards difficult, requiring context-sensitive adjudication.
- Risk of Fragmentation: Excessive recognition of denominational autonomy may lead to social divisions and exclusionary practices.
- Need for Balance: A middle path is required that respects both constitutional values and cultural diversity.
Way Forward
- Refining the ERP Doctrine: Shift towards a rights-centric approach, focusing on whether a practice violates fundamental rights rather than its religious essentiality.
- Promoting Constitutional Morality: Strengthen awareness of equality, dignity, and fraternity through civic education and judicial consistency.
- Contextual Interpretation: Courts should adopt a balanced approach, considering both cultural practices and constitutional principles.
- Inclusive Religious Practices: Encourage reforms within religious communities to ensure gender justice and social inclusion.
- Dialogue-Based Resolution: Promote engagement between state, judiciary, and religious groups to reduce conflict and enhance legitimacy.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala issue reflects the broader challenge of balancing faith, rights, and constitutional values in a diverse society. While religious freedom is essential, it cannot override the principles of equality and dignity. The Indian Constitution remains a living document, requiring continuous interpretation to harmonise tradition with modern democratic ideals.
EXPECTED QUESTIONS FOR UPSC CSE
Prelims MCQ
Q. The “Essential Religious Practices” doctrine was evolved in which case?
(a) Kesavananda Bharati
(b) Shirur Mutt Case
(c) Minerva Mills
(d) S.R. Bommai
Answer: (b)
Descriptive Question
Q. “The debate between public morality and constitutional morality lies at the heart of religious freedom in India.” Discuss with reference to the Sabarimala case. (250 Words, 15 Marks)