NEED FOR CHANGE IN APPROACH OF INDIAN JUDICIARY WHILE HANDLING CASES RELATED TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Indian constitution follows
separation of powers in a flexible manner such that three organs of state can
keep a check on each other so that fundamental rights that are guaranteed under
Indian Constitution are not violated.
Judicial activism is among such form under with judiciary not only
performs function of interpreting the laws but also interferes with sphere of
legislature and executive to uplift minority section of society. Now days such
approach is frequent in cases related to freedom of Religion under Article 25
of Indian Constitution? On one hand Indian
Constitution gives the freedom to citizens to practise and propagate any
religion but on the other hand judiciary can interfere when such rituals are
against fundamental rights or health or public morality. For instance Supreme
Court evolved the doctrine of ‘Essential Religious Practise ‘in case of The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha
Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt which comes under head of Judicial Activism. The
doctrine when evolved by judiciary had a very flexible approach such that all
rituals were covered under doctrine which forms the basic tenants of the
religion.
With span of time this doctrine has
also evolved a strict approach according to intellect of judges while
considering different cases as filed before Supreme Court such as Triple Talaq[1]
case as well case related to Sabarimala Temple. Now such interference which was
first recognized as Judicial Activism a positive approach of judiciary is
turning into judicial over reach, a negative approach of Judiciary towards
freedom of religion. The former one is a judicial interference which is
admissible and required for achieving fair justice but the latter one is misuse
of judicial power and in terms of freedom of religion, the people will no
longer be guided by the ancient scriptures to practise their religion but by
whims and fancies of judges.
Such approach is neither desirable
nor admissible as per separation of powers as mentioned under Indian
Constitution. Thus there is need to follow an alternative approach while
considering cases of Freedom of Religion. Judiciary should play an active role as
interpreter of constitution rather than being an intervener in concepts of
essential practices to religion. They should interfere only when such rituals
or practise is against the principles of Indian Constitution as mentioned under
Article 25 and while delivering the judgement they should not define which
practise is essential to religion and which is not. Religion is an important
element of life and peace would only be retained in society if the interference
is in the form of Judicial Activism rather than Judicial overreach. Thus in order to have freedom of religion as
well a secular nation it is required by Judiciary to restrict their ambit of
power within the sphere of Judicial Activism.
Public Provident Fund | PPF
ReplyDelete