Madras High Court decision on the angapradakshinam practice

Source: The post Madras High Court decision on the angapradakshinam practice has been created, based on the article “Spiritual orientation, religious practices and courts” published in “The Hindu” on 6th July 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Indian Constitution — features, amendments, significant provisions.

Context: The article discusses a recent court decision in India that allows a controversial religious practice. It examines how the judiciary determines which religious practices are essential and protected under the law, often leading to inconsistent rulings that limit religious freedom based on constitutional principles.

For detailed information on Freedom of religion and attire read this article here

What are the judgments of the Madras High Court on the angapradakshinam practice?

1. 2024 Ruling by Justice G.R. Swaminathan: The Madras High Court allowed the angapradakshinam practice where individuals roll over banana leaves after meals have been consumed. This was seen as part of the devotees’ freedom of religion under Article 25 and the right to privacy under Article 21.
2. Overturned 2015 Decision: The 2024 decision reversed a 2015 ruling that banned the practice citing potential caste discrimination. The 2015 judgment had concerns that it predominantly involved Dalits and non-Brahmins, which was seen as discriminatory.
3. Inclusion of All Castes: Justice Swaminathan noted that not only Dalits but people from other castes also participated, which countered the allegation of caste-based discrimination.

What is the criticism of this case?

1. Lack of Essentiality Test: Critics argue that the court did not rigorously examine whether angapradakshinam is an essential religious practice, diverging from past cases where such scrutiny was pivotal.
2. Potential Health Concerns: The practice involves rolling over used banana leaves, raising questions about hygiene and health risks, which the court seemingly overlooked.
3. Inconsistency in Judicial Reasoning: The decision highlights inconsistencies in how Indian courts determine what constitutes an essential practice, often shifting between strict textual analysis and broader interpretations based on rationality, leading to unpredictable legal standards.

How have courts treated essential practices in the past?

1. Sri Shirur Mutt (1954): The Supreme Court stated that essential religious practices should be determined by religion itself. This set a precedent for examining religious texts to define essential practices.
2. The Durgah Committee, Ajmer (1961): The court differentiated between essential religious practices and superstitious beliefs, stating that only integral and essential practices are protected under freedom of religion.
3. Gramsabha of Village Battis Shirala (2014): The court ruled capturing and worshipping a live cobra during Nag Panchami as not essential because it wasn’t supported by broader religious texts.
4. Mohammed Fasi (1985): The Kerala High Court ruled that growing a beard was not essential to Islam as it was not mandated in the Quran, despite it being a practice based on Hadith.
5. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta (2004): The Supreme Court denied that the tandava dance was an essential practice of the Ananda Margi faith because the faith existed before the practice was adopted.
6. M. Ismail Faruqui (1995): The court held that while prayer is essential, praying at a specific mosque is not unless the mosque itself holds particular religious significance.

Way forward

To ensure fairness, courts should avoid interpreting religious texts and focus on constitutional values. They should treat practices that align with fundamental rights and public health as essential. This approach will harmonize religious freedom with societal progress, as seen in the evolving jurisprudence from Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) to more recent rulings like M. Ismail Faruqui (1995).

Question for practice:

Discuss the Madras High Court’s recent ruling on angapradakshinam and its implications for the determination of essential religious practices in India, considering criticisms and past judicial precedents.