The Hindu Business Line : Secular in suspense

RECENTLY, the Chief Justice of India, Mr S. Rajendra Babu, had to give his views on a dispute over freedom of religion. The case A. Ramaswamy Dikshitulu vs Government of Andhra Pradesh was about the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The legislation had abolished all rights whether hereditary, contractual or otherwise of any person who is an Archaka, a Mirasidar, a Mathadhipati or any other office holder of office in any religious institution.

This was challenged as violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, as interfering with the `Right to Freedom of Religion'. Years back, the apex court had held the AP legislation to be valid. However, what had again come up before the Supreme Court in the form of review petitions was about the tug of war between what can be considered religious, and what, secular.

Heavy-duty arguments were presented in the court before the CJI and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, that religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of the religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in a particular doctrine; and that, if the tenets of a particular religion require performance of certain rites and ceremonies to be performed at certain times and in a particular manner, these cannot be treated as secular activities.

Protection of the Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or belief but extended to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore, contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are an integral part of religion, it was submitted. Also, that a religious denomination enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters.

However, to make matters tough, "to determine whether a particular practice is a matter of religion may be a difficult task because religious and secular practices are intricately mixed up." So, "the task of disengaging the secular from the religious may not be easy but it must nevertheless be attempted," is a snatch from the judgment. A pertinent observation is about the ever-present danger of clothing "even purely secular practices which are not essential or integral to the religion" with a religious form to claim protection. In the process, it was stated that the court's approach had been "influenced by the basic assumption that religion should be equated to Dharma."

Religion is a sensitive issue. "We have given our anxious consideration to the various contentions put forth before us," said the Chief Justice. "Considering the nature of the contentions urged, the scope and extent of the same, we think, these are fit cases for consideration by a larger Bench."

The suspense as to what's religious and what's secular would, therefore, linger on for some more time.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Ex Parte

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Secular in suspense

Graduating in style!

Marriott Delhi gets to `host' Olympic torch