The Supreme Court of India expressed significant concerns regarding the potential for individuals to challenge religious practices, warning such actions could overwhelm the judiciary with Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, A. Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, P.B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi raised these issues during a session addressing the balance between fundamental rights and religious customs.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that the Constitution prioritizes the protection of individual fundamental rights, suggesting that constitutional courts should intervene if a religious practice infringes upon these rights. In response, Justice Nagarathna questioned the implications of permitting every individual to challenge religious customs, noting, “What will happen to our civilization, which is intrinsically linked to religion?”
Justice Sundresh added that if individuals were allowed to flood the courts with challenges to different practices, it could lead to a judicial backlog. He noted that what one person may view as a regressive practice could be considered essential by another. Therefore, he queried, “How does the court determine who is right?” He emphasized that while individuals could seek recourse for grievances caused by religious practices, they should approach civil courts instead of constitutional courts.
The dialogue highlighted the ongoing debate over the intersection of individual rights and faith-based customs. Ramachandran maintained that fundamental rights cannot be violated by religious customs, asserting that any infringement allows the affected individual to seek remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution.
