Bombay High Court Rules in Right to No Religion, Asserts Secular Tenets of Constitution

MUMBAI: The scope of individual identity in India has been given a new, much broader and an all-inclusive meaning, thanks to a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court. In its ruling, the court held that an Indian citizen has the right to say he or she does not belong to any religion while filling up an official form of any kind including declarations, affidavits, applications and any other documents.

A division bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice A S Chandurkar delivered the judgment on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by three individuals belonging to the “Full Gospel Church of God”. At a time when sections of people professing particular faiths, be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or any of the others, are jostling for large portions of the public space, the ruling has given much-needed relief for those who would like to turn away from religion or keep their religious practices private.

In fact, the three individuals approached the court, as they wanted the Government Printing Press in Maharashtra, as per procedure, to issue a gazette notification of their declaration that they belonged to “no religion”. The Press had refused to recognise their “no-religion” status.

Incidentally, their organisation “Full Gospel Church of God”, though Christian-sounding, does not subscribe to Christianity even while acknowledging the existence of Jesus Christ. The court, in its judgment that should be welcomed by secular-minded Indians, utilised Article 19 and Article 25 of the Constitution, which deal with freedom of conscience and choice of religion along with the freedom of speech and expression.

Fundamental rights are a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, and peaceful assembly, freedom to practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights by means of writs such as habeas corpus. The Fundamental Rights are defined as basic human freedoms, which every Indian citizen has the right to enjoy for a proper and harmonious development of personality. These rights universally apply to all citizens, irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste or gender. Aliens (persons who are not citizens) are also considered in matters like equality before law.

The Constitution of India contains the right to freedom, given in articles 19, 20, 21, 21A and 22, with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. It is a cluster of four main laws. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the following six freedoms:

• Freedom to assemble peacefully without arms, on which the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

• Freedom to form associations or unions or co-operative societies on which the State can impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interest of public order, morality and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

• Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India though reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interest of the general public, for example, restrictions may be imposed on movement and travelling, so as to control epidemics.

• Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India which is also subject to reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the scheduled tribes because certain safeguards as are envisaged here seem to be justified to protect indigenous and tribal peoples from exploitation and coercion. Article 370 restricts citizens from other Indian states and Kashmiri women who marry men from other states from purchasing land or property in Jammu and Kashmir.

• Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business on which the State may impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. Thus, there is no right to carry on a business, which is dangerous or immoral. Also, professional or technical qualifications may be prescribed for practicing any profession or carrying on any trade.

• Right to freedom of religion, covered in Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28, provides religious freedom to all citizens of India. The objective of this right is to sustain the principle of in India. According to the Constitution, all religions are equal before the State and no religion shall be given preference over the other. Citizens are free to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choice.

Religious communities can set up charitable institutions of their own. However, activities in such institutions, which are not religious, are performed according to the laws laid down by the government. Establishing a charitable institution can also be restricted in the interest of public order, morality and health. No person shall be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion of a particular religion. A State run institution cannot be imparting education that is pro-religion.

Further, the ruling reminded citizens that India is a secular democratic republic where the state does not profess or, for that matter, support any religion. The individual had the complete right to believe or not believe in religion, the ruling stated emphatically. What the ruling has done is to once and for all clear the air about the limits and privileges enjoyed by those who profess a religion as opposed to those who, for their own personal reasons, do not feel comfortable with any faith and would rather keep off from any of it.

In a global situation where bloody conflicts are being waged over the issue of religion and to assert the supremacy of certain sects within specific religions, the Bombay court ruling will be keenly noticed and perused as India is a significant international player with a massive population that follows almost all religions found in the rest of the world. As for the ex-believer who has eschewed religion and the atheist individual alike, the judgment is an encouraging sign that all is not lost in this religion-obsessed world.

(The writer is former Member Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh.)