The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 6th July 2024 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Spiritual Orientation, Religious Practices and Courts

Why in News?

The article discusses a controversial Madras High Court ruling allowing the religious practice of angapradakshinam, highlighting debates on religious freedoms, judicial consistency, and constitutional principles in India’s legal landscape.

Subjective Nature of Religion:

• Chief Justice Lathman of Australia (1943) highlighted that what one person considers religion may be viewed as superstition by another, emphasizing the subjective nature of religious beliefs.

Religion's Central Role in Society:

• Religion has always been a crucial part of human societies.
• Currently, India is experiencing a notable rise in religiosity alongside a decline in spirituality.

Judicial Order on Angapradakshinam:

• Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court made a significant and controversial ruling in P. Navin Kumar (2024).
• The ruling allowed the religious practice of angapradakshinam, which involves devotees rolling over banana leaves used by followers of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendral in Tamil Nadu.
• This decision overturned a previous order from 2015 by Justice S. Manikumar.

Previous Legal Controversy:

• In 2015, objections were raised regarding caste discrimination, alleging that Dalits and non-Brahmins were rolling over leftover plantain leaves.
• Justice Manikumar's decision was influenced by a Supreme Court order that stayed a similar ritual in Karnataka, which primarily involved Dalits.

Revival of Debates on Religion and Essential Practices:

• Justice Swaminathan’s recent order has rekindled debates on defining religion, determining essential religious practices, and maintaining judicial consistency.
• He justified his decision by referencing Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 21 (right to privacy), and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) of the Indian Constitution, asserting the petitioner’s rights.

Legal and Philosophical Considerations:

• The Indian Constitution places religious freedoms below other fundamental rights and permits state intervention for public order, health, and morality, emphasizing 'essential religious practices.'
• Only a small number of cases have successfully claimed protection under 'essential religious practices,' prompting critical evaluation of Justice Swaminathan’s ruling.

Criticism and Constitutional Challenges:

• Concerns were raised about the hygiene and health hazards of angapradakshinam, questioning its compatibility with the right to privacy in a public event.
• Justice Swaminathan defended privacy rights, comparing spiritual orientation to sexual and gender orientations, arguing for individual expression within legal boundaries.

Supreme Court Precedents and Religious Freedoms:

• The landmark case of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) established that Article 25 protects outward acts of religious belief, using religious doctrines to define essential practices.
• Subsequent interpretations have varied, sometimes diverging from religious texts to judicial reasoning, as seen in The Durgah Committee, Ajmer (1961) and other cases.