Saturday, February 4, 2023
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Culture
    • All
    • Food and Travel
    • Literature
    • Popular Culture
    A view of Varanasi, during the dusk hours.

    Legal Dimension to Altering Places of Worship and ‘Secularism.’

    Book Review- The Khalistan Conspiracy

    Book Review- The Khalistan Conspiracy

    Book Review-The Execution of Bhagat Singh: Legal Heresies of the Raj

    Book Review-The Execution of Bhagat Singh: Legal Heresies of the Raj

    chessboard game

    Censorship: The Trojan Horse Method in Art

    What You Should Not Expect at a Village Wedding

    What You Should Not Expect at a Village Wedding

    A picture of Mother Theresa in Kolkata

    Religious Fetishisation of Love: Hélder Câmara and Mother Teresa

  • Politics
  • Business
  • Identity
  • Events & News
  • Science & Tech
No Result
View All Result
Converciti
  • Home
  • Culture
    • All
    • Food and Travel
    • Literature
    • Popular Culture
    A view of Varanasi, during the dusk hours.

    Legal Dimension to Altering Places of Worship and ‘Secularism.’

    Book Review- The Khalistan Conspiracy

    Book Review- The Khalistan Conspiracy

    Book Review-The Execution of Bhagat Singh: Legal Heresies of the Raj

    Book Review-The Execution of Bhagat Singh: Legal Heresies of the Raj

    chessboard game

    Censorship: The Trojan Horse Method in Art

    What You Should Not Expect at a Village Wedding

    What You Should Not Expect at a Village Wedding

    A picture of Mother Theresa in Kolkata

    Religious Fetishisation of Love: Hélder Câmara and Mother Teresa

  • Politics
  • Business
  • Identity
  • Events & News
  • Science & Tech
No Result
View All Result
Converciti
No Result
View All Result
Home Identity Religion

Legal Dimension to Altering Places of Worship and ‘Secularism.’

May 21, 2021
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A view of Varanasi, during the dusk hours.

A view of Varanasi, during the dusk hours.

Varanasi Court’s Order

On 8th April, a civil court in Varanasi allowed the Archeological Survey of India to survey the Gyanvapi Mosque, where it is contented by Hindu groups that a temple used to exist before it was demolished on the orders of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Emperor. According to one of the orders issued by the court, “The prime purpose of Archaeological Survey shall be to find out whether the religious structure standing at present at the disputed site is a superimposition, alteration or addition or three is structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure.” Once the Archaeological Survey of India completes the survey, it will be asked to present a “comprehensive physical survey of the entire site.”

If we suppose in a hypothetical scenario that the survey finds out that a structure does exist below with indications of Hindu Temple Architecture, what will be the response of the court?

In 2019, when the honorable Supreme Court in M Siddiq(D)Th Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das Ors allocated the entire disputed land to Hindu Parties and five acres of land to Muslim parties, it made an important decision. It held that the status of no other place of worship will be allowed to change. This observation of the court is also in consonance with the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which places a bar on the conversion of places of worship as they were existing on 15th August 1947, with the exception of Ram Janmbhomi. The civil court may ask the Central Government to bring appropriate changes in existing laws to change the structure of the place.

However, any such amendment will have to pass the test of not violating the basic structure of the Constitution, of which Secularism has been held a part of in SR Bommai vs Union of India. Therefore, it becomes essential to look at how the Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of ‘Secularism’ and what were the thoughts of the members of the Constituent Assembly on ‘Secularism.’

Constituent Assembly on ‘Secularism’

The opinion of the Constituent Assembly on the definition of the word ‘Secularism’ was divided. Shri HV Kamath, representing Central Provinces and Berar, had moved a new sub-clause after clause (1) of Article 19,- “The state shall not establish, endow, or patronize any particular religion. Nothing shall however prevent the State from importing spiritual training or instruction to the citizens of the Union.” Another member of the Constituent Assembly, Shri Loknath Misra representing Odisha, said “Justice demands the ancient faith and culture of the land should be given a fair deal, if not replaced to its legitimate place after a thousand years of suppression.” According to Mr. Misra, Vedic Culture “excludes nothing” and therefore the right inference from his statements in the house suggests to us that he saw ‘Secularism’ as an inherent feature of a common civilization.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhary, representing Guwahati, Assam was of the view “We are framing a Constitution where we speak of religion but there is no mention of God anywhere.” He was more concerned with the metaphysical component of religion. Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India on the floor of the house said “The state is not going to establish, patronize or endow any particular religion to the exclusion of or in preference to others and that no citizen in the State will have any preferential statement.” This assurance from the Prime Minister himself meant that minorities will not be subjected to discrimination by those who are in majority.

Interestingly, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was against the insertion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Constitution as he believed that how society must be organized should at best be left to the people of the country. Broadly speaking, most of the members of the Constituent Assembly agreed on India being a secular country, but their interpretation of the word was different from each other.

Supreme Court’s stance on Secularism

In the year 1962, the Supreme Court of India in Sardar Syedna Sahib vs the State of Bombay, held “Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution embody the principle of religious toleration, besides they serve to emphasis the secular nature of Indian democracy which founding fathers considered to be a very basis of the Constitution.” In 1974, the Supreme Court held that ‘Secularism’ was a basic structure of the Constitution but did not explain or propounded its thought on what is meant by ‘Secularism.’ However, the decision of the Supreme Court in SR Bommai vs Union of India has helped significantly to understand the concept of ‘Secularism’ in India. As per Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh(with Justice Pandian concurring), “The state is enjoined to accord equal treatment to all religions and religious sects and denominations.” At the same time, Justice Ramaswamy held “The state is prohibited to patronize any particular religion as the state religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality.”

Google Ad: Indie Stylery Google Ad: Indie Stylery Google Ad: Indie Stylery

The construction of any religious site with active or passive support from the state machinery must therefore be treated as violating the basic structure of the constitution considering the judgment in SR Bommai vs Union of India. Another significant judgment was Bal Patil vs Union of India, where the Supreme Court held “The constitutional goal is to develop citizenship in which everyone enjoys full fundamentals freedoms of religion, faith, and worship and no is apprehensive of encroachment of his rights by others in minority or majority.” This observation is significant because it talks about harmonization between religious practices and possible encroachment of the rights of other religions by observing religious practices which may be detrimental to the rights of others. This also draws our attention to another concept called the ‘Essential Religious Practices’ test. There is no strict principle of determining what is an essential religious practice and the court considers the views of the religious community while deciding the validity of the city socio-religious practice. Therefore, the validity of any religious practice is decided on a case-to-case basis.

Hindutva Judgement and Future Prospects

In 2016, when the Supreme Court was examining the scope and width of section 123(3) of representation of people, it clearly stated that it is not going to look into Hindutva Judgement. The judgment has appeared to be problematic since the word ‘Hindutva’ was made synonymous with ‘Hinduism.’ The three-judge bench headed by Justice Verma used the phrase ‘way of life’ to describe ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hindutva.’ This judgment has motivated right-wing parties such as the BJP to add a legal dimension to the cause of constructing temples which the parties claim have been destroyed by Islamic rulers. In conclusion, it can be said that the task of reclaiming temples is a difficult one because it will involve a significant alteration of the word ‘Secular’ to make it compatible with the demands of right-wing groups. As of now, the possibility of any review of what is meant by ‘Secularism’ seems to be a distant possibility.

Share7Tweet4Share1Send
Siddharth Chaturvedi

Siddharth Chaturvedi

I am currently pursuing BALLB from Dharmashastra National Law University. My area of research is Constitutional Law, Human Rights Law, International Relations with a focus on China.

Related Posts

Indian News Media

Can Morality in Media be subjected to legal analysis In India ?.

August 28, 2022

Media is an important part of democracy. It has been labelled as the fourth pillar after Government, Judiciary, and legislature. The main reason for it being called the fourth pillar is because of its large-scale influence over the people....

Beautiful New Delhi at sunset!
Indian Politics

Modi Cabinet Reshuffle: The New Union Cabinet

July 7, 2021

The Modi Government announced a Cabinet Reshuffle. This change comes against the backdrop of a massive review, which has stretched for weeks, undertaken by the BJP top brass. The cabinet reshuffle of the Modi government is going to result...

What are you looking for?

No Result
View All Result

Popular

Plugin Install : Popular Post Widget need JNews - View Counter to be installed

Our Instagram

Follow Us

  • An eight-time MLA, Yediyurappa became the Chief Minister for the first time in 2007 but had to resign after a week when JD(S) refused to support his government. A year later he was elected Chief Minister after leading the BJP to victory in the 2008 assembly elections. However, he had to resign after he was indicted in a corruption case in 2011. He had also formed his own party, Karnataka Janata Paksha, after he fell out with the BJP leadership. In 2014, he merged his party with the BJP and went on to win the parliamentary elections from the Shimoga constituency. He was later acquitted in 2016.  He was sworn in again in 2018 as the Chief Minister of the State but resigned two days later as he could not muster enough support to continue in his post. A year later, he was back as the Chief Minister after the earlier Chief Minister, H D Kumaraswamy lost the majority in the assembly. In the December by-elections, the BJP won 12 out of 15 seats and managed to get the full majority of 117 seats.
  • The BJP hit back at the Congress and claimed "there is not a shred of evidence" to link either the ruling party or the Modi dispensation with the matter. BJP leader and former IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad questioned the credentials of those behind the story as well as its timing, coming a day before Parliament
  • ‘Pegasus’ is a spyware used to snoop into handsets. It has been claimed that even a missed video call on WhatsApp could give Pegasus complete access to users
  • The Centre on Monday dismissed reports of illegal surveillance through the Pegasus software. A huge row has erupted after media outlets reported that the phone numbers of Indian ministers, journalists, activists and others were listed on a leaked database of potential targets of cyber surveillance.  “There is no substance whatsoever behind this sensationalism,” Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw said during the Lok Sabha session.  The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will convene at till 11 am on Tuesday. They were both adjourned amid uproar by Opposition MPs.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced the newly inducted Union ministers to the Lok Sabha as he addressed the Lower House of Parliament. On July 7, as many as 43 leaders were inducted into the Cabinet, taking the number of members in the Union Council of Ministers to 78.  The Monsoon Session of Parliament began on Monday with proceedings in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha starting at 11 am. The session will conclude on August 13.  #parliament #modi #nda #debate #discussion #opposition #loksabha #rajyasabha #pm #monsoon #season #congress #inc

  • About Us
  • Terms Of Service
  • Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2020 Indraprastha Design Co. - Converciti

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Identity
  • Events & News
  • Science & Tech
  • Login
  • Sign Up

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

*By registering into our website, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In