Date: 14/02/2023

Relevance: GS-2: Indian Constitution - Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions, and Basic Structure.

Key Phrases: Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay, Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs The State Of Maharashtra, Constitutional Morality, Essential Practices.

Why in News?

• A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court referred the challenge to the constitutional validity of the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community to the nine-judge Bench constituted to review the September 28, 2018, Sabarimala judgment.

What is the issue?

• The question of how to balance the rights of religious groups with the rights of their followers has been a long-standing issue in India's courts.
• In 1962, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4-1 ruling, prioritized group rights over individual freedom in the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay.
• This case challenged the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, which prohibited religious communities from expelling individuals from group membership.
• The petitioner argued that the power to excommunicate was integral to the Dawoodi Bohra community's collective right to religious freedom.
• The Supreme Court of India agreed to reconsider the verdict in Sardar Syedna through the judgment in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs The State Of Maharashtra.

Reasons for reconsideration:

• The original ruling had failed to examine whether the rights of religious denominations ought to be balanced with other fundamental rights, particularly the rights of its individual members to be treated with equal care and dignity.
• In the years since Sardar Syedna, Indian jurisprudence has evolved to a point where any act of excommunication ought to be tested on a touchstone of constitutional morality.

In India, conflict is inevitable:

• There is, in the words of the former Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin, no “magic barometer” to measure limits on religious freedom.
• Religion plays a significant role in the social life of India, and as a result, denominational rights often clash with laws of general application and the individual rights of a group's members.
• In the Shirur Mutt case of 1954, the court held that only those aspects of religion deemed essential to faith would receive constitutional protection.
• However, this distinction between the religious and secular soon broke down as the court assumed theological authority to interpret religious scriptures and determine which practices were integral to faith.
• This approach was flawed as it ignored the individual's ethical autonomy to determine how best to lead their lives.
• The Sardar Syedna case further highlighted this problem as the court failed to strike down a practice that violated individual rights merely because it was deemed essential to faith.

The Failure of Essential Practices Doctrine

• The essential practices doctrine also meant that the Court was sometimes unwilling to strike down a practice that violated individual rights, even if it was deemed essential to faith.
• This was evident in the Sardar Syedna case, where the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community challenged the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, of 1949.
• The Court declared the law unconstitutional, stating that the power to excommunicate was so essential to the group's faith that legislation could not reform the religion out of existence.

Dissent in Sardar Syedna

• In the Sardar Syedna case, Chief Justice of India B.P. Sinha offered a dissenting opinion that emphasized the importance of the individual.
• He argued that it was irrelevant whether the practice of ex-communication was essential to religion.
• Instead, the court should focus on the effect the practice had on the excommunicated individual.
• Excommunication resulted in the individual being disentitled from using communal properties and being socially and religiously ostracized.
• The practice also violated Article 17 of the constitution, which abolished untouchability in any form.
• The CJI argued that religious groups have rights so that individuals can come together to fulfil collective desires, and any practice, no matter how essential to faith, cannot undermine the dignity of the individual.

Importance of Constitutional Morality:

• Constitutional morality is the idea that the Constitution of India must not only be legally valid but must also be morally justifiable.
• It encompasses the values of liberty, fraternity, equality, and dignity that form the foundation of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court, in recent years, has increasingly relied on constitutional morality to resolve conflicts between individual rights and denominational rights.
• Article 26 of the constitution provides that all religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. However, this right must be in consonance with public order, morality, and health.
• The concept of constitutional morality requires that religious practices be tested on the touchstone of the constitution's values and principles, including the dignity and equality of all individuals.

Conclusion:

• Balancing the rights of religious groups with the rights of its individual members remains a contentious issue in India.
• The essential practices doctrine failed as it undermined the autonomy of members and was sometimes unwilling to strike down practices that violated individual rights.
• The Court recognizes the importance of upholding religious freedom, but also acknowledges the importance of protecting the dignity of individuals and ensuring that no practice undermines their ethical autonomy.
• The Court will consider the role of constitutional morality in resolving this issue, and will likely seek a solution that strikes a balance between religious rights and individual rights.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. How can the concept of constitutional morality play a role in resolving conflicts between individual rights and denominational rights in religious matters? Discuss.