The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed grave apprehension over allowing individuals to challenge religious practices, warning that it would break every religion and constitutional court as thousands would clog courts with public interest litigations (PILs) based on self-assessments of these customs. The remark came from a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
Context of the Statement
The observation was made after senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that since the Constitution focuses on protecting an individual's fundamental rights, constitutional courts must intervene if a religious practice or custom violates those rights. Justice Nagarathna questioned, “If every individual is free to approach the constitutional court to question or challenge religious practices and customs, what will happen to our civilisation, which is intrinsically linked to religion?”
Potential Consequences
Justice Sundresh elaborated on the potential fallout, stating, “In such a scenario, every religion and constitutional court will break as thousands of individuals, with different views about religion and religious practices, will come to court clogging the system. A religious custom or practice may be regressive from the viewpoint of an individual, and the same could be an essential religious practice for another. How does the court determine who is right? Should courts get mired in adjudicating religious matters?” He clarified that this does not mean a person wronged by a religious practice has no remedies, as they can approach civil courts.
Counterargument by Senior Advocate
Raju Ramachandran stood firm with his opinion that an individual's fundamental rights cannot be violated through religious customs. He stated, “We are a constitutional civilisation, where nothing can violate fundamental rights. Any violation would entitle the aggrieved individual to approach courts under Article 32 of the Constitution.”
The debate underscores the tension between protecting individual rights and preserving religious traditions, with the court highlighting the practical challenges of adjudicating such matters.
