In the secular State of India, current matter of factor has been the discussion and decision on the ‘Essential religious practices.’
It was in Shiroor Matha case, the judiciary took up the responsibility on itself to decide on what are the essential religious practices and which are integral to religion. The essence and reflection of the same is witnessed in Sabarimala Temple entry case and High Court verdict on wearing headscarf inside the classroom.
At recent times, the judiciary of the nation has stepped into the phase of activism from constraint. The phase which began through Keshavananda Bharati case in order to uphold the rights of the citizens at times have also proved as an over powering the executive and judiciary. As a matter of fact, the judiciary of the nation is dealing with several undisposed cases. Along the function of interpretation of law and administering justice, taking up the burden of interpretation of religious practices is not only takes its time but also questions the integrity of the law practitioners in dealing with the religious affairs.
Religion is an integral part of Indian society and religion exceeds beyond the logic of human minds. On the contrary judiciary possesses the crew trained to deal based on the law, logic and legality and not on religion.
It will be apt on the part of the judiciary to involve the religious scholars prior to making a decision on religion and its practices. Such a model and an unbiased judgement protects and preserves religions in the country and its practices. It also decreases the burden of court of law to be involved into the comprehension of religion and reduces the delay in disposal of cases.
Image by succo
