LIBERTIES OF FAITH, BELIEF AND WORSHIP

Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. However, most countries offer these liberties to a limited degree. When even few developed countries lack civil liberties, India in this front surpasses them.

United States as an example, which although has a statue of liberty symbolizing the values of liberty, has gradually granted liberties to their countrymen since their declaration of Independence. It was not until 1866, that the US Constitution was amended to extend these rights to persons of color, and not until 1920 that these rights were extended to women. On the contrary, India right from its independence strives for values of liberty. The Preamble of Indian Constitution itself is embedded with philosophy of liberty. Framers of constitution envisaged the wide scope of liberty and reserved this liberty not only limited to thoughts or expressions but extended it to the field of religion, providing liberty to belief, faith and worship. With these fundamental principles of liberty, unlike many other theocratic states, India has established today as a secular but not anti-religious state. With this essence of liberty, ‘freedom house’ a research organization rates India with high degree of civil liberties and honors India as a ‘free state’.

The above referred liberty to faith and belief are guaranteed to individuals in Indian constitution. However, faith and belief are abstract. They remain absolutely immune and immortal to external pressure and they cannot be subject to change directly by external force. In real essence, guarantee for liberty to faith and belief can be ascertained only when manifestation of faith and belief is protected. This has been multiple times iterated in Supreme Court, as an example, in Commissioner of Police and others v/s Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and others, being the second “Ananda Marga” case, the Court had opined:

“The protection guaranteed under Articles 25and 26 of the Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or belief but extends to actsdone in pursuance of religion and, therefore, contains a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or integral part of religion.”(Emphasis supplied)

In other words, if this manifestation of faith and belief is impeded then the liberty to faith and belief, in reality is impeded. This is what happened with believers of Sabarimala temple, in recent Supreme Court case.

Recently, Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Sabarimala case by entertaining a PIL by non-believers.  The Supreme Court had to decide whether right to enter temple by women of all ages prevails or liberty of worshippers to maintain a religious custom succeeds. The custom was in practice since ages, accepted by believers of both genders. Supreme Court decided the case in favour of women of all ages and dismissed the custom. According to believers, the custom which was dismissed, is necessary to maintain the form of deity manifested out of faith and belief. By dismissing this custom the form of deity itself will change, which will hurt the liberty of believers to worship their deity. This will in effect, have cascading effects on their liberty to faith and worship. The same was rightly noted by the only dissenting judge Indu Malhotra in Sabarimala case:

“In the present case, the character of the temple at Sabarimala is unique on the basis of centuries old religious practices followed to preserve the manifestation of the deity, and the worship associated with it. Any interference with the mode and manner of worship of this religious denomination, or sect, would impact the character of the Temple, and affect the beliefs and practices of the worshippers of this Temple.”(Emphasis supplied)

Framers of constitution were firm believers in liberty and wished to impart utmost freedom of faith, belief and worshipto their countrymen. This Sabarimala judgment seems to have impaired the believers from their liberty to faith, belief and worship. Was such an interpretation of liberty intended by the framers of constitution?

SHOULD COURTS INTERFERE IN RELIGIOUS PRACTICES WHICH CAN HURT LIBERTIES OF FAITH AND BELIEF OF BELIEVERS? 

– H. H. Jainacharya Yugbhushan Suriji [Pandit Maharaja]