CHANNEL009 Connects India
Related Articles
‘STATE IS NO ALIEN’: SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS GOVERNMENT’S POWER TO REFORM SOCIAL EVILS IN RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
NEW DELHI – On the seventh day of the high-stakes Sabarimala reference hearing, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a powerful observation on the role of the government in religious matters. The Bench clarified that the State is not an “alien” or an “outsider” when it comes to religion, but a representative of the people’s will with a constitutional mandate to reform regressive social practices.
The observations were made during the ongoing deliberation on the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution and the authority of courts to intervene in “essential religious practices.”
The State as a Reformer
The nine-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, responded to arguments suggesting that the State should remain entirely detached from religious traditions. The Court noted that the Constitution of India does not envision a wall of separation between the State and religion in the same way some Western democracies do.
“The State is not an alien. It represents the will of the people,” the Court observed. “It has been given the power under the Constitution to intervene for the purpose of social reform and to remove social evils that may be embedded in religious practices.”
Article 25(2)(b): The Constitutional Bridge
The Court’s remarks centered on Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which specifically empowers the State to make laws for social welfare and reform. This includes the power to “throw open” Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of society.
The Bench emphasized that if a religious practice results in the exclusion of a particular section of people—such as women or specific castes—the State is not only permitted but obligated to step in to ensure equality and constitutional morality.
Key Takeaways from Day 7:
-
Public vs. Private: The Court noted that when a religious institution takes on a “public character,” it cannot claim absolute immunity from State-led reforms.
-
Collective Will: By defining the State as a representative of the “will of the people,” the Court suggested that legislative actions toward equality are a reflection of a maturing society’s desire to evolve.
-
Social Evils: The Bench clarified that the protection of “essential religious practices” does not extend to practices that are deemed “social evils” or those that violate the fundamental rights of individuals guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
The Significance of the Hearing
The nine-judge bench is not deciding the Sabarimala case itself, but rather establishing the legal framework and “reference points” for several pending cases involving religious rights. These include the entry of women into mosques, the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women married to non-Parsis.
By affirming the State’s power to act as a reformer, the Supreme Court is signaling that “constitutional morality” will likely take precedence over traditional practices that are found to be discriminatory.
What’s Next?
As the hearing continues, the focus is expected to shift toward defining what constitutes an “Essential Religious Practice” and whether a court of law is equipped to decide on matters of faith. However, today’s observation has firmly established that the State will remain a key player in the ongoing evolution of India’s religious and social landscape.
The hearing remains one of the most significant judicial exercises in recent history, as it seeks to strike a delicate balance between the “right to pray” and the “right to equality.”
