Balancing Faith, Dignity and Constitutional Rights

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Constitution of India —historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, leading to protests and constitutional debate. Review petitions now challenge both the verdict and the legal principles used in the decision. A nine-judge Bench will examine broader constitutional questions on religious freedom, especially how courts should resolve conflicts between religious autonomy and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and individual rights.

Constitutional protection of religious freedom and its limits

1. Dual protection: The Constitution protects the individual right to practise religion and also protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. This ensures recognition of both personal belief and collective religious autonomy.
2. Constitutional limits: These rights are not absolute and are subject to public order, morality, and health. The individual right to religious freedom is also subject to other fundamental rights, including equality and dignity.
3. Core conflict: The Constitution creates a balance between religious autonomy and individual rights. This balance becomes difficult when religious practices exclude individuals and affect their dignity and equal participation.

Supreme Court’s Sabarimala judgment and judicial opinions

Majority ruling: The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, gave the following findings:

• No separate denomination: The Court held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
• Violation of religious freedom: The exclusion of women aged 10–50 was held to violate women’s constitutional right to freedom of religion.
• Rule declared unconstitutional: The Supreme Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, as it violated the Constitution.
• Violation of parent law: The Court also held that Rule 3(b) violated Section 3 of the parent law, which guaranteed temple access to all classes of Hindus.

Minority view: Justice Indu Malhotra, in her dissent, gave the following findings:

• Need for harmonisation: She held that fundamental rights in a secular polity must be harmonised, and equality cannot automatically override religious freedom.
• Protection of religious customs: She stated that individuals have the collective right to practise their faith according to their customs and beliefs, which deserve constitutional protection.
• Essential religious practice: She found that the exclusion of women of a certain age was based on long-standing custom and constituted an essential religious practice, which should not be interfered with.

Essential religious practices test and its role in judicial review

1. Test meaning: The essential religious practices test is used by courts to determine whether a religious practice qualifies for constitutional protection. Courts examine whether the practice is essential to the religion.
2. Judicial authority: This test allows courts to interpret religious doctrine and decide which practices are essential. As a result, courts determine the scope of constitutional protection for religious practices.
3. Judicial example: In the 1966 Swaminarayan sect case, the Court determined essential religious practices using selective references to Hindu texts. It concluded what was essential without relying on the conscience of followers.
4. Test limitations: The test allows courts to sit in theological judgment over religion, which is inconsistent with secular principles. It also requires courts to reach factual conclusions without oral evidence or cross-examination and fails to resolve situations where essential practices violate dignity.

Anti-exclusion test and shift towards dignity-based constitutional approach

1. Test meaning: The anti-exclusion test examines whether a religious practice excludes individuals in a way that harms their dignity or denies access to basic goods. If such exclusion occurs, constitutional values of equality and dignity prevail over religious freedom.
2. Test purpose: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud proposed the anti-exclusion test to address the limitations of the essential religious practices test. It allows religious groups to define their own beliefs while preventing exclusion that harms dignity.
3. Constitutional focus: The test examines whether exclusion violates constitutional guarantees of equal treatment and protection. It focuses on the consequences of exclusion rather than on whether a practice is essential to religion.
4. Religious autonomy: The test accepts religious autonomy as a starting point and respects the right of religious communities to manage their affairs. Courts intervene only when exclusion affects dignity and access to basic goods.
5. Key distinction: Unlike the essential religious practices test, the anti-exclusion test does not ask whether a practice is essential to religion. It examines whether exclusion violates constitutional guarantees of dignity and equal access.

Broader implications for religious freedom jurisprudence

1. Constitutional review: The nine-judge Bench will examine broader constitutional questions on religious freedom while hearing the review petitions and related issues. Its ruling will determine how courts should resolve conflicts between religious autonomy and individual dignity.
2. Bohra exclusion: The issue involves the right of Dawoodi Bohra religious authorities to exclude members from the community. It raises the constitutional question of whether such exclusion violates dignity and equal religious participation.
3. Parsi women rights: The issue concerns whether Parsi women can continue practising the Zoroastrian faith after marrying outside the religion. It raises questions about access to religious life and protection of individual religious freedom.
4. Social consequences: Religion and social life are closely connected, and religious practices affect access to important institutions. Courts cannot remain indifferent when such practices affect dignity and equal participation.
5. Individual priority: The Constitution places the individual at the centre of concern and protects equal moral membership. Religious autonomy cannot override a person’s dignity and access to religious and civic spaces.

Conclusion:

The Constitution protects both religious autonomy and individual dignity. Courts must avoid theological judgment while ensuring that religious practices do not cause exclusion and discrimination. The anti-exclusion test provides a dignity-based constitutional framework. It protects religious belief while ensuring equal access and reinforces the Constitution’s commitment to equality, dignity, and individual rights in matters of religion.

Question for practice:

Examine how the Supreme Court’s Sabarimala judgment reflects the tension between religious autonomy and constitutional principles of dignity and equality, and discuss the significance of the anti-exclusion test in resolving this conflict.

Source: The Hindu