Constitution's Role in Religious Disputes: Judicial Review and Harmonization

The 'essential religious practice' test is used by courts to determine if a religious practice is fundamental to the religion. If a practice is deemed essential, it gets protection under religious freedom clauses. However, even essential practices are now subject to constitutional morality, allowing courts to intervene if they violate fundamental rights or public order.

Two recent Madras High Court judgments highlight the judiciary's role in adjudicating religious disputes. The courts assert individual rights to equality and religious freedom, subject to public interest restrictions. Temples are not private spaces immune to court intervention. Southern states led jurisprudence on religious freedoms.

India's secularism emphasizes equal respect for all religions, not a strict separation of state and religion. This means the judiciary can engage with religious matters to ensure alignment with constitutional values, ensuring religious practices do not violate fundamental rights or public order.

The shift from viewing religious matters as civil rights disputes to constitutional directives began after 1950, with southern states leading jurisprudence. Landmark cases and legislation like the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927 paved the way for increased judicial scrutiny of religious practices.

The issue is in the news due to recent Madras High Court judgments that highlight the judiciary's active role in adjudicating religious disputes. These judgments reinforce the idea that courts have a constitutional duty to ensure religious practices align with fundamental rights and public order.

Courts derive their power to intervene in religious matters from the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights like equality and religious freedom. However, these rights are subject to public order, morality, and health, allowing the state to regulate religious practices to ensure they align with constitutional principles.

Pros include protecting fundamental rights, promoting equality, and ensuring justice. Cons include potential conflicts with religious freedom, accusations of judicial overreach, and the risk of misinterpreting religious texts or traditions. Balancing these requires careful consideration of constitutional principles and religious practices.

The judiciary uses the 'essential religious practice' test and the principle of constitutional morality to assess whether religious practices infringe upon fundamental rights or violate constitutional principles. This ensures that religious freedom is balanced with other constitutional values.

Greater clarity on the 'essential religious practice' doctrine, enhanced interfaith dialogue, and increased public awareness of constitutional values are needed. A more consistent and transparent application of constitutional principles in adjudicating religious disputes is also crucial.

Key dates include 1908 (Privy Council case on temple entry), 1927 (Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act), and 1950 (Adoption of the Constitution). These dates mark significant milestones in the evolution of jurisprudence on religious freedom and state intervention.