SECULARISM & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM : FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ; RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION

☀️ SECULARISM

             : The western definition of the word "secularism" is the "divorce/seperation of king with church". But INDIA has its own definition of SECULARISM i.e. "LIBERTY OF BELIEF, FAITH AND WORSHIP".

          These all reflect that India doesn't have any STATE RELIGION and also it is not an anti-religion which means it is simply REPUBLIC OF INDIA. But if somebody alters the sentiments of any other religion, then STATE will punish him according to the law : STATE is in position of WATCHFUL AMBIVALENCE.

ARTICLE 25, 26, 27 and 28 deals with religious freedom.

       ♦️ ARTICLE 25 : FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE (conscience : Belief, Faith and Worship)

      It is enjoyed by an individual as it is an Individual Right. But the STATE restrict that individual with certain exceptions :

        1). In the violation of Public Order.

        2). In the violation of Morality 

        3). In the violation of Fundamental Rights Listed In Part III of the Constitution.

        4). In the violation of Health 

[Religious Denomination : It is a group of people or a section of people which follow a religion having unique name and unique essential religious practice. Example: Arya Samaj]

        ♦️ ARTICLE 26 : FREEDOM OF MANAGEMENT OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS 

              It is not given to an individual rather it is given to a Religious Denomination as it is a collective rights. Here also the STATE restrict with certain exceptions : 

             1). In the violation of Public Order 

             2). In the violation of Morality 

             3). In the violation of Health 

 

     💠 SABRIMALA CASE & SECULARISM

       Its full technical name is " INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION vs STATE OF KERALA " . It was a writ petition because of the violation of Fundamental Rights.

               SABRIMALA temple premises, Lord Ayyappa is the name of residente of SABRIMALA Temple as has been termed as it is not nearly an ideal due to the reason of infusion of Life. So, in the eyes of law, Lord Ayyappa is not an ideal, he becomes a juristic person and enjoys rights too.

                SABRIMALA temple has its own PURANA and according to this, Lord Ayyappa is a Nastic Brahmachari (Eternal Celebrate) . So according to the followers of Lord Ayyappa, it is the essential religious practice to restrict the women of Menstruation or Reproductive age, the darshan of Lord Ayyappa.

      In the writ petition, the Indian Young Lowyers' Association claimed that the Kerala entry to Hindu Places of Worship rules is violating our Article 15 (discrimination on the basis of sex ), Article 17 ( not allowing darshan to the women of Menstruating/reproductive age), Article 21 ( violation of life and personal liberty), Article 25 ( violation of freedom of conscience). So,  requested to declare it null & void.

            In the counter with this, the state of Kerala, explained that the followers of Lord Ayyappa are religious denomination. So, according to Article 26, they don't have to think about the rights included in part III of the constitution.

The Constitutional bench of 5 judges, gave their judgement that 

✳️ Followers of Lord Ayyappa are not Religious Denomination.

✳️The practice of excluding women is unconstitutional and violating the fundamental rights to equality, liberty, and freedom of religion, Article 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1)

✳️The state of Kerala have to declare the rule of book of worship, null and void.

         ↪️{JUDGEMENT OF 2018}

Again a review is filled (according to Article 137) and it has been referred to a seven judge bench.