Balancing Religious Traditions and Human Dignity: A Legal and Ethical Dilemma

Source: KAICIID

On May 17, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court permitted the resumption of "annadhanam" (offering free food) and "angapradakshanam" (circumambulation) practices at the final resting place of Nerur Sathguru Sadasiva Brahmendral. This decision was a significant reversal of the 2015 Division Bench order that had halted these practices following a public interest litigation (PIL) petition. Justice G.R. Swaminathan invoked Article 25(1) of the Constitution. This article guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.

The Court’s Ruling on the Resumption of Annadhanam & Angapradakshinam

• The court pointed out that performing annadanam is a venerable tradition deeply rooted in Indian culture. Stopping such practices could be seen as disregarding customs that benefit society.
• The court highlighted the right of devotees to perform such rituals as part of their fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution. It suggested that such practices must be respected and facilitated by temple authorities in keeping with the devotees' faith and devotion, as long as they don't contravene the law or public order.
• While recognizing the customs, it also stressed that such practices should be conducted within a legal and constitutional framework. Any regulation or limitation on these practices should not infringe on the fundamental rights of individuals as provided by the Constitution.
• Justice Swaminathan's remarks highlighted the need to balance the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion with the administrative responsibilities of temple authorities.

Why was there an Initial Prohibition on the Practice?

The prohibition was a result of a PIL filed by concerned groups highlighting the practice's adverse impacts on health and dignity. The decision was influenced by a Supreme Court case in Karnataka where a comparable practice was stayed due to concerns about health and dignity, setting a precedent for the current prohibition.

• The practice involved rolling over leftover food and plantain leaves, which were not properly cleaned, leading to significant hygiene problems. Physical contact with unsanitary surfaces posed risks, potentially spreading diseases.
• The practice was considered degrading and dehumanizing, conflicting with basic human dignity and self-respect.
• Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures equality and non-discrimination. The practice was deemed discriminatory, violating this constitutional right.
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life, including the right to live with dignity. The practice compromised this right by subjecting individuals to demeaning activities.
• The prohibition aimed to prevent health hazards affecting the broader community.
• Upholding ethical and moral standards in society was another reason for the ban.

Constitutional Provisions

The prohibition of certain religious practices by the 2015 Division Bench Order underscores key constitutional provisions that set the framework for such decisions. Here are the relevant constitutional articles and their implications in this context:

Article 14 guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection by the law. The prohibition of a practice because it is discriminatory aligns with the constitutional mandate that no individual or group should be subjected to unequal treatment. 

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of their right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This right has been interpreted to include the right to live with dignity. A practice that dehumanizes individuals undermines this fundamental right. 

Article 25 grants individuals the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health. 

While Article 19 ensures the freedom of speech and expression, it is also subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, or morality. Practices that are expressions of religious beliefs may be curtailed if they contravene these interests. 

Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)

Individuals or groups may seek judicial intervention through Article 32 when they believe their fundamental rights are being violated. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that led to the prohibition of the practice is an example of exercising this right to seek a remedy for perceived constitutional violations.

Cultural and Religious Significance of Annadhanam and Angapradakshinam

Both practices help in preserving cultural heritage, passed down through generations as part of religious and social rituals.

• Annadanam promotes social equality by serving food to all. Angapradakshinam fosters community participation and unity during temple festivals.
• Annadanam is seen as a virtuous act that earns spiritual merit and blessings. Angapradakshinam symbolizes self-surrender and deep devotion to the deity.
• Angapradakshinam serves as an act of penitence, seeking forgiveness and cleansing the soul. Annadanam is believed to accumulate good karma through the act of feeding the hungry.
• Angapradakshinam is often performed to fulfill sacred vows, whereas Annadanam involves offering sanctified food (Prasadam) to the deity.
• Both practices are supported by religious texts; Annadanam is endorsed by ancient scriptures for pleasing deities and ancestors. Angapradakshinam has historical and mythological references underscoring its spiritual goals.

Human Dignity and its Significance

Human dignity is a foundational concept that underpins many human rights frameworks and constitutional provisions worldwide, including those of the Indian Constitution. It refers to the intrinsic worth that every individual possesses simply by virtue of being human. Here's a detailed exploration of what human dignity entails and its broader significance:

• Provides a core principle for moral behavior and decision-making processes. Acts as a cornerstone for ethical theories and practices that guide societal values.
• Serves as the foundational principle for international human rights frameworks. Justifies the protection of fundamental rights such as freedom, equality, and security.
• Enshrined in many national constitutions and legal systems, ensuring individuals' rights are upheld by law. Influences judicial decisions and legislative measures to prevent and rectify abuses.
• Promotes equitable treatment and fights against all forms of discrimination. Essential for the realization of a fair and just society where all members are valued equally.
• Guides the development and implementation of policies that respect and enhance the well-being of individuals. Ensures that administrative decisions prioritize the dignity and rights of individuals.

Cultural Relativism Vs. Universalism

Cultural relativism emphasizes the significance of understanding and respecting cultural practices from the perspective of those who engage in them. Justice Swaminathan’s decision can be seen as an endorsement of cultural relativism. It values traditional and local customs under the protective umbrella of constitutional rights.

Conversely, universalism promotes adherence to a single set of human rights standards. It stresses that certain practices should be evaluated against universally accepted human rights norms regardless of local cultural contexts. 

International human rights instruments like the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) uphold the principles of human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. These documents call for the alignment of local customs with broader human rights standards, posing a challenge to purely relativistic approaches.

The United Nations Charter is the founding treaty of the United Nations, an international organization established in 1945. It sets out the purposes, principles, and structure of the UN. It outlines the functions and responsibilities of its principal organs. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a landmark document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. It delineates fundamental human rights that are to be universally protected. This includes civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

The debate between cultural relativism and universalism is a central theme in discussions about ethics, human rights, and global justice. These two perspectives offer contrasting views on how values, norms, and rights should be understood and applied across different cultural contexts.

How does the State Balance Traditions & Progressive Values?

The state's role and responsibilities in balancing between respecting traditions and promoting progressive values, as well as educating and reforming unhealthy or harmful practices, include:

• Engaging with cultural and religious leaders to ensure laws are sensitive to cultural nuances and avoid alienating key segments of the population.
• Developing policies that respect cultural practices not in conflict with constitutional values. This fosters social harmony and inclusiveness.
• Ensuring laws explicitly protect individual rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution. This helps promote equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberties.
• Creating progressive policies that encourage education, scientific temper, and rational thinking. This includes critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making.
• Implementing laws with context-sensitive enforcement, training law enforcement to handle issues respectfully yet firmly uphold constitutional principles.
• Ensuring law enforcement processes are transparent and fair, with community feedback and adaptation where possible.
• Launching public education campaigns to promote the benefits of rationalism and scientific thinking through public service announcements, school curricula, and community workshops.
• Strengthening institutions that promote scientific research and rational discussions, such as science academies, universities, and think tanks.
• Integrating traditional healthcare practices with modern medicine, encouraging scientifically approved methods while respecting cultural practices.
• Monitoring and regulating traditional health practices to prevent harm and ensure minimum safety standards.
• Implementing universal health care and education systems rooted in scientific knowledge and ethical principles, ensuring accessibility to all citizens.
• Protecting the right of individuals and communities to practice cultural and religious traditions if these do not infringe on others' rights and well-being.
• Fostering dialogue between cultural groups and human rights advocates to find common ground and compromise in conflicts.
• Enacting and enforcing anti-discrimination laws to prevent discrimination based on gender, caste, religion, or ethnicity. This helps promote gender equality and protect marginalized groups.

Landmark Cases in India Balancing Tradition and Progressive Values

India’s judiciary has been at the forefront of balancing traditional cultural and religious practices with progressive values enshrined in the Constitution. Here are some key cases:

Sabarimala Temple Entry (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, 2018)

Context: The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala traditionally barred women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering, citing religious beliefs.
Ruling: The Supreme Court of India ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. It violated women's rights to equality and freedom of religion, and protection against gender discrimination under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that any religious practice that violates fundamental rights cannot be protected.

Triple Talaq (Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017)

Context: The practice of instant triple talaq allowed Muslim men to unilaterally and instantaneously divorce their wives by saying "talaq" three times.
Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq as unconstitutional and arbitrary. It violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women under Articles 14 and 21 (right to equality and right to life and personal liberty). This landmark ruling led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. It criminalized the practice of instant triple talaq and protected the rights of Muslim women.

Live-in Relationships and Legitimacy of Children (D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, 2010)

Context: The case addressed the legal recognition of live-in relationships and the rights of individuals in such arrangements.
Ruling: The Supreme Court recognized live-in relationships for the first time and ruled that such relationships are protected under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Furthermore, the Court stated that children born out of live-in relationships are legitimate. This ruling marked a progressive shift towards accepting non-traditional relationships. It ensured protection and dignity for all individuals regardless of their relationship status.