JUDGMENT ANALYSIS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Freedom of Religion
Sabarimala temple case/ Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. the State of Kerala (2018):
Supreme Court Allows Women Entry into Sabarimala Temple, which it termed as a violation of women’s right to practice religion.
Issue/dispute at the core:
Essential religious practice, Right to Freedom of Religion vs. constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Constitutional and legislative provisions involved
Article 14,15, 21 &25, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 (restricts the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple)
Judgment delivered:
· SC stated that ‘devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.It overturned the 1951 judgment of Bombay High Court in the State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali which held that personal law is not ‘law’ or ‘law in force under Article 13 and held that immunizing customs takes away the primacy of the constitution.
· It takes away the woman’s right against discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution and curtails the religious freedom assured by Article 25(1).
· Preventing women’s entry into the temple with the irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends the equality clauses in the Constitution
· SC held that prohibition founded on the notion that menstruating women are “polluted and impure” is a form of untouchability (Article 17) and the notions stigmatized women.
· No customs can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring the sanctity of dignity, liberty, and equality, and customs and personal law have a significant impact on the civil status of individuals.
Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. on 8 March,2018 (case of Hadiya)
· SC held that the Right to choose religion and marry is an intrinsic part of meaningful existence. Neither the State nor patriarchal supremacy can interfere with a person’s decision.
· It is a change from SC’s earlier interpretation of the word “propagate,” to mean “to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets,” but do not include the right to convert another person to one’s own religion.
· It reinvigorates freedom of religion and freedom of conscience which has been recognized under international law under the Universal Declaration on
· Human Rights recognizing the fact that the entire humanity enjoys certain alienable rights. India is also a signatory of the same.
· The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion but it does not explicitly mention a right to conversion.
TripleTalaq Shayara Bano Case (2017)
Issue: Gender Equality vs Freedom of Religion
· The Supreme Court declared that divorce through instant triple talaq among Muslims would be “void”, “illegal” and “unconstitutional”.
· The court declared that instant Triple Talaq is unconstitutional, Constitution Bench did not accept the argument that instant talaq is essential to Islam and deserves constitutional protection under Article 25.
· This practice is arbitrary and depends on the whims of the husband. The court ruled that the practice was against Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. It suggested the government bring legislation banning triple talaq.
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019:
It criminalizes the practice of instant Triple Talaq. SC said that a Muslim husband declaring instant Triple Talaq can be imprisoned for up to 3 years is alleged to be disproportionate for a civil offence.
Danial Latifi case (2001)
It challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Muslim Women’s Act (1986), for providing maintenance only during the iddat period.
The SC ruled that the husband would pay a reasonable and fair amount needed to maintain his ex-wife for the rest of her life.
Shamim Ara case (2002)
· SC said that Nikah Halala is also rendered redundant.
· The court had said a mere plea of talaq in response to the proceedings filed by the woman for maintenance cannot be treated as a pronouncement of talaq. To be valid talaq has to be pronounced as per the Koranic injunction.
· SC held that talaq must be pronounced in an Islamic way and it should be proven beyond doubt the events leading to talaq.
· It held that the wife was liable to receive maintenance from her husband
Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) case (1997)
The court held that adjudication of personal law was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
Shah Bano Case (1985)
The SC directed the husband to pay alimony to Shah Bano.
The Government at the time enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (1986), to nullify the court directive.
It limited the maintenance payments to the iddat period (the 3-month waiting period for divorce).
Shirur Mutt’ case (1954)
Doctrine of Essentiality
SC said that the term Religion will cover all rituals and practices integral to a religion, and took upon itself the responsibility of determining the essential and non-essential practices of a religion.
Azeez Basha case, 1967
SC ruled that universities come under the definition of “educational institution” in Article 30(1).