GUIDING VERDICTS OF THE SUPREME COURT WITH RESPECT TO RELIGIOUS PRACTICES

The Indian Constitution went into effect on January 26, 1950, following a protracted and exhausting war against the British Empire. This was a real endeavor to break free from the Hindu caste system and bring many different religious and cultural groups together under the banner of secularism.

Consequently, Indian jurisprudence gives the fundamental right to freedom of religion a great deal of weight. But it’s equally important to remember that no one else right should be violated by someone else exercising their right to freedom of religion. From now on, it must be clearly defined which religious practices are fundamental to religion.

Various Religious Practices in India: Verdicts of Supreme Court

There are some major landmark verdicts of the Supreme Court on religious practices in India from the judiciary exam point of view. They are as follows:

The case of “SABARIMALA TEMPLE”

• It is a matter of religious practices in Hinduism.
• By a majority decision of 4:1 on September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court removed the prohibition that barred women and girls (mostly menstrual women) between the ages of 10 and 50 from attending the well-known Ayyappa shrine in Kerala.
• According to Articles 14 and 25, declared the centuries-old religious practices in Hinduism to be unlawful and unconstitutional.
• Temple caretakers contend that because the local deity, Ayyappa, is a celibate, women of menstrual age are not allowed to give prayers.

The case of “MUSLIM WOMEN ENTERING A MOSQUE”

• A few Muslim women knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors in the year 2019 to demand the freedom to enter mosques.
• It was argued that this practice violated fundamental rights and was insulting to women.
• According to the petition, this prohibition is invalid and illegal because the activities in question violate not only the fundamental rights protected by Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution but also a woman’s basic dignity as an individual.
• The case had its last hearing on November 5 in the year 2019, by a bench that included Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari, and CJI-designate Justice S. A. Bobde.

The case of “MAULTING OF THE FEMALE GENITALIA OF DAWOODI BOHRAS”

• Sunita Tiwari v UOI and Ors is a 2018 case that was forwarded to a larger Supreme Court panel.
• The case’s facts state that widespread mutilation, also known as “khatna” or “khafd,” was forced upon all female members of the Dawoodi Bohra Community.
• The petitioner used a writ petition filed under Article 32 to contest the constitutionality of this procedure.
• It was argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated by this forced mutilation.

The Case of “THE PARSI- HINDU AGYARI ENTRY”

• In the 2012 Gujarat High Court ruling Goolrukh Gupta v Burjur Pardiwala, a Special Leave Petition was filed.
• In 2010, Goolrukh Contractor Gupta, the petitioner, filed a case in the High Court following the denial of admission to the Tower of Silence during her friend’s mother’s funeral ceremonies. Like her, her friend was a Parsi married to a Hindu.
• Goolrukh Gupta’s lawyer claimed in court that the issue was whether a marriage between a Hindu and a Parsi automatically resulted in religious conversion.  Thus, gender justice was brought up by the situation.
• A Constitution Bench noted in December 2017 that a woman does not give up her love for her father when she marries outside of her faith and that DNA continues to exist after such a union.

How to Preserve Religious Practice in India?

There are numerous ways for preserving the religious practices in India. They are as follows:

• Build a society that promotes plurality of religion and compassion and set into effect programs for education that highlight the significance of religious diversity and inclusiveness.
• Make certain that the ability to adhere to one’s religion has been safeguarded by a system of legal protections and uphold and strengthen those constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of religion.
• Take measures that will protect and preserve institutions of worship and antiquities and in order to safeguard these places’ cultural and historical significance, engage in conservation measures.
• Implement educational activities that incorporate details regarding numerous faiths that promote mutual respect and comprehension and spread awareness about the value of religious unity through grassroots efforts and advertising campaigns.
• Adopt regulation that safeguards individuals from discrimination as a result of their religious convictions and provide guidelines for managing and settling cases of discrimination related to religion.
• Promote initiatives that seek to safeguard and advance cultural and religious customs while guaranteeing that ancient traditions endure for future generations, to keep track of and safeguard them.
• Support in maintaining and expanding religious rituals & institutions through offering resources and support while encouraging the orderly execution of religious ceremonies and festivities.

The Indian judiciary has dutifully undertaken the responsibility of identifying the various facets of this necessity. We can infer from the abundance of rulings that the Indian judiciary has established several facets of the essentiality theory. Still outstanding is one of the important rulings, which has to do with the Sabarimala issue among other things. It is hoped that this matter will offer much-needed clarification on how important legal procedures interface with Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.