ReligionFreedom – Supreme Court Says Faith Does Not Depend on Rituals

  ReligionFreedom – The Supreme Court on Wednesday underlined that Hinduism cannot be confined to rituals or temple visits, observing that personal faith is enough for an individual to identify as a Hindu.

The remarks came during the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala reference matter before a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The bench is examining several petitions connected to the rights of women at places of worship and broader questions surrounding religious freedom across different faiths, including issues linked to the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Court Discusses Meaning of Hindu Identity

During the proceedings, senior advocate Dr G Mohan Gopal, appearing for one of the intervenors, argued that demands for social reform have often emerged from within religious communities themselves. He questioned earlier judicial interpretations that attempted to define Hinduism in rigid terms.

Referring to a 1966 ruling, Gopal submitted that the court had previously described a Hindu as someone who accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in matters of religion and philosophy. He argued that such a definition may not reflect the beliefs of every person identified as Hindu in modern India.

According to him, many individuals may deeply respect Hindu scriptures without necessarily treating them as the sole spiritual authority. He stressed that religious identity in contemporary society is far more diverse and personal than formal definitions suggest.

Faith Beyond Rituals

Responding to these arguments, Justice B V Nagarathna observed that Hinduism has long been regarded as a way of life rather than a strictly ritual-based religion. She noted that a person does not lose their religious identity merely because they do not regularly visit temples or perform ceremonies.

The judge stated that spirituality and belief are personal matters and should not be restricted by compulsory religious practices. She further remarked that people are free to express their faith in their own manner without interference.

Chief Justice Surya Kant echoed similar views during the hearing. He observed that even a simple act, such as lighting a lamp at home, can reflect an individual’s faith and religious belief. The bench’s observations highlighted a broader interpretation of personal devotion and religious practice within Indian society.

Wider Issues Before Constitution Bench

The Constitution Bench is currently hearing a group of matters linked to religious customs, gender equality, and constitutional protections. The Sabarimala dispute remains one of the most significant among them, involving questions over women’s entry into the Kerala temple and the balance between religious traditions and fundamental rights.

The hearings are also examining the extent to which courts can intervene in religious matters. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued before the bench that judicial institutions should exercise restraint while dealing with internal religious practices and customs.

The outcome of these proceedings is expected to have a lasting impact on how constitutional rights and religious freedoms are interpreted in India in the future.

Supreme Court Raises Road Safety Concerns

In a separate matter heard on Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressed concern over poor lane discipline on Indian roads. The court observed that the country effectively lacks a proper culture of lane driving, which contributes significantly to traffic accidents.

The bench directed all states and Union Territories to strengthen road-safety enforcement measures. It also ordered authorities to ensure the installation of Vehicle Location Tracking Devices (VLTDs) and panic buttons in vehicles as part of broader safety initiatives.

Criminal Case Against Hospital Cancelled

The apex court also quashed a criminal complaint filed against a Kolkata-based hospital and its chairman. The bench observed that disputes related to billing issues and service deficiencies are generally civil matters and should not automatically attract criminal proceedings.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside a 2023 order of the Calcutta High Court in the case.