Supreme Court Grapples with Constitutional Limits on Religious Nudity Practices
The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) presented a significant argument before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, questioning whether Indian courts possess the authority to prohibit the public appearance of naked sadhus from Jainism's Digambar sect. This inquiry arises despite constitutional provisions that subject every religious denomination to considerations of 'public order, health, and morality,' with public nudity generally being an offense under law.
Legal Arguments on Essential Religious Practices
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing the TDB, responded to persistent questioning from the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The justices sought clarity on whether courts can evaluate if a custom or tenet qualifies as an essential religious practice, thereby granting it immunity from judicial scrutiny. Singhvi emphasized that such judicial tests should strictly adhere to the constitutional parameters outlined in Article 25, which specifically references 'public order, health, and morality.'
Singhvi articulated a crucial point: even extreme examples of religious expression might fall outside the scope of judicial review. He cited the Jain Digambar sect, noting that while nudity is widely considered abhorrent in civilized societies, the practices of this sect—including nude existence and public movement—are undeniably accepted as core components of a well-established religion. Consequently, he argued, these practices should not be subject to being struck down under Article 25.
Support from Solicitor General and International Precedent
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta aligned with Singhvi's position, referencing the example of Naga Sadhus, who also roam naked as part of their religious observance. This discussion gained additional context from a recent international ruling. In September of the previous year, the Nepal Supreme Court dismissed a petition that sought to ban Naga Sadhus from entering the Pashupatinath temple during the Mahashivaratri festival. The petition had claimed that their public nudity caused obscenity and disturbed other devotees.
The Nepal Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, stating that nudity mandated by religion cannot be regarded as obscene. The court elaborated that nudity is merely a physical state, often involving the exposure of sexual organs or body parts, whereas obscenity pertains to content that arouses sexual desire or is deemed socially and culturally shameful. Therefore, not all instances of nudity qualify as obscene.
The court provided examples: nudity expressed in artistic imagination, for religious purposes, or for medical and therapeutic use cannot be automatically labeled as obscene. Similarly, ancient sculptures of deities in temples or nude paintings and statues displayed in museums should not be condemned as obscene. The Nepal Supreme Court underscored that prohibiting the centuries-old tradition of Naga Sadhus visiting the temple would violate religious faith at both national and international levels.
Core Principle: Judicial Restraint in Religious Matters
Singhvi reinforced a fundamental principle in his arguments, asserting that external adjudicators, such as courts of law, cannot and should not sit in judgment over what constitutes the belief or practice of a religion. He reiterated that the bona fide, albeit subjective, belief of the religious community is both crucial and dispositive in determining these aspects. The court is obligated to accept the practices and beliefs of the community as defined by the community itself.
This ongoing Supreme Court case highlights the delicate balance between constitutional safeguards for public order and the protection of religious freedoms. The arguments presented raise profound questions about the limits of judicial intervention in deeply held religious customs, particularly those involving practices that may conflict with societal norms. The outcome of this deliberation could set a significant precedent for how Indian law navigates the intersection of religion, morality, and public decency in a diverse society.
