The Art of Secularism

Author: Antriksh Mishra, 3rd Year student of IIT Law School, IIT Kharagpur.

"India is my country and I am proud to be its citizen"—one thing which no Indian will think twice before speaking. Now let’s change the parameters a little–"Hinduism is my religion and I am proud to be a Hindu." Now that is something people think twice before speaking. It has happened to me and to many others I know. 

In this post I would try to dwell the reasons for such hesitation. Let’s begin with Art. 25 of the Constitution of India, the famous "Freedom of Religion" clause. Firstly the clause allows "all persons" to "practice", "profess" and "propagate" their religion. This would include all individuals whether or not citizens of India.

The words "practice", "profess" and "propagate" cover any and all religious activities, even asking other persons to join your religion (as long as such joining is without force or consideration) is allowed (as mentioned by K. Santhanam during the Constituent Assembly Debates). And this beckons the question, "Why the hesitation?"

One might say that the answer is more of a psychological nature than legal. I would however respectfully disagree. The answer is more related to Indian Polity and Law than to Psychology.

Let’s start from the common understanding of the word secular and try to answers some fundamental questions.

1. Is being secular the anti-thesis of being religious?

The answer to this is a quite emphatic “No”. If being secular were the anti-thesis of being religious, both of these could not have found place in our Constitution. Secularism as referred to in the Preamble and religious freedom as referred to in Art. 25, as propounded by The Keshvananda Bharti Judgement, find their place in the basic structure of the Constitution. (Notwithstanding my objection on the way the Keshvananda Judgement was delivered, and how Justice HR Khanna's opinion was not similar to that of the other three majority judges, It is still the law of the land.)

2. Does being religious mean you must follow all preaching of a faith?

Again the answer would be an emphatic a “NO”. Take for example Galileo or Darwin, both of them asked questions and were subjected to great persecution, but today Christianity has evolved and accepted (to a certain extent) their theories, while they were devoted Christians till their dying breath. Now for the legal stand lets read Art 19 and Art 25 together, I have the right to free speech (which allows me any question on any religion) and Freedom of religion (which gives me freedom to choose religion), so no one has the right to doubt one’s faith in a religion, or stop him from practicing a religion based on questions raised by a follower. Religion (in theory) must welcome and clear doubts.

3. When one calls oneself proud to be of the Hindu faith does he become a zealot?

And again the answer is  a ”NO”. What faith you follow is a personal question, whether you choose to be vocal about it is a personal choice. As long as you don't hurt another faith how can there be a question of being a zealot. And this is where Politics comes into the picture. Hinduism in India seems to have become synonymous of RSS or BJP or the Babri Masjid incident. But frankly it is not. Not withstanding the fact that RSS ( the then Hindu Mahasabha) was the only organization other than the Muslim league to not take part in the Quit India movement and their chief in 2006 claimed that Quit India Movement was a failure.  In all fairness the public services done by RSS, Hinduism and Hindu extremists are two different things,just as Muslims are different from Muslim extremist. One does not equate the practices in Muslim majority State of Turkey to that of Saudi Arabia then why isn't such a differentiation available for the Hindu faith. As per the principle of equity Hindus have the same rights and responsibilities as the other minority classes in India. And by virtue of being the majority, the Constitution does not bestow upon them, a higher degree of responsibilities than the other faiths.

I am proud to say that I am religious, I am proud to say I am a Hindu and I am proud to say that I am a Bhartiya, an Indian, a Hindustani (which is actually derived from Indus, but Hey! propaganda is spread by use of selective dissemination of facts, as recently) and still I am secular. I respect other faiths, I ask questions about other’s and my own faith and I wish to leave my faith to future generations, evolved, than what it was when I had it. In this regard I agree with Mahatma Gandhi's views.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 19th October to 25th October 2014.

In a case by one Gursahani, the SEBI’s circular increasing the limitation for arbitration from six months to three years was challenged. The court upheld the circular and dismissed the case.

In Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs.  Novartis AG, Suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing respondents Indian Patent came up for preliminary consideration before the learned Single Judge on September 08, 2014, on which date the appellant appeared to oppose the grant of any ad-interim injunction. The Court said that no ad-interim injunction can be given on lines of LA Roche Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.

The Chief Information Officer, Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu, took a strict stance on the handling and weeding out policies of government documents subject to RTIs. The Commission looking into the matter asked the concerned authority to show cause to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for making a wrong claim of weeding the record and for not furnishing the information to the complainant. The direction of the Commission clearly reflects the harmony between Public Records Act and Right to Information Act.

After coming out on bail, Jayalalitha took notice of the extreme steps being taken in row of the Court’s decision. She has appealed to all the supporters to condemn such acts and has promised Rs. 3 Lacs compensation to the families of the deceased. A responsible gesture by the ex-CM, but it would have been prudent to take such a stance much earlier.

In the infamous case of alleged sexual harassment in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the accused administrative Judge has asserted before the apex Court that the woman judge “was not a disciplined member of the judiciary and after an elapsation of 15 days after the glory of the post she had formerly held, she levied reckless allegations and concocted a story in an attempt to get herself reinstated in service”. The course ahead depends crucially on the evidence advanced before the Court for efficient dispense of justice.

The All Inida Bar Association (AIBA) has written to the Supreme Court to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against Thanti TV, a Tamil news channel. The channel is alleged to have recorded the court proceedings of the arguments put forward by Mr. Fali Nariman in the  Jayalalitha case.  Amid all this, the Kerala High Court is discussing provisions to ban lawyers from talking to journalists about their pending cases and their proceedings.

According to the direction by the law ministry, all 15,000 subordinate courts will have their judgments digitised, with new judgments to be uploaded by 6pm on the day that it is handed down. This is a welcome step which should have seen the light of the day years ago for efficient administration of the Court proceedings.

According to the direction by the Government, all its ministries will have to upload all the RTI applications and their respective replies on their websites. This documents containing personal information can be put out of the ambit of this direction. This is a potential step towards greater transparency and efficiency.

In the alleged forest land encroachment by BS Yedurappa and his kin, the Karnataka High Court set aside the Sessions court order which was stalling the investigation. The estimated area encroached is around 84 acres in the Shimoga district. With all relevant documents submitted and arguments completed, the decision will be given on 28th October.

The deadline of the biometric attendance system kicks in on the 25^th of this month. According to the direction from the PMO, all the government offices are to be installed with the electronic attendance machines. Also, the attendance is accessible to the public through attendance.gov.in. This is a simple step taken by the Government to ensure efficient governance and better service.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Abhishek Chansoria (1st Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Legal Updates

In this new feature of our blog, we will be bringing you all that has happened in the legal world last week. We hope that the augmentation of these news will be helpful for all of us in updating ourselves.

Updates: 13th October to 18th October 2014.

The Last week started with the SEBI barring DLF and six executives from entering the securities market and from buying or selling securities for three years. This follows the failure of DLF to provide key information on subsidiaries and pending legal cases at the time of its 2007 public offering. This might be a crucial decision taken by SEBI and it remains to be seen what course the court takes on this issue.

The Delhi High Court laid down guidelines in examining child witnesses when it overruled a judgment of the Dwarka District Court acquitting the accused in the rape of a 3 year old girl. The Court referred to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that the testimony of a child can be considered as a basis of conviction provided the child understands the questions. The Court criticized the approach of the trial court which had held the testimony of the child to be inadmissible.

AIADMK supporters had a reason to cheer and celebrate as the Supreme Court granted bail to the party supremo J. Jayalalitha and suspended the trial court’s sentence on a condition that there will be no attempt to delay the criminal proceedings in the Karnataka High Court. There can be different stands of legal scholars on this but as for the courts are concerned, they would take reason and practicality in accord for now.

The CIC has held that during the pendency of a RTI application the relevant record should not be destroyed by the public authority even if it’s weeding out policy permits. The CIC has cautioned that such a destruction of record would be a serious breach of the Right to Information Act.

India says no to unilateral opinion. The Government of India has told the American authorities that they will not be co-operating USTR’s Special 301 Out of Cycle Review (OCR) process. Indian authorities have said that they would engage US in bi-lateral dialogue mechanisms under the new IP working group, rather than the unilateral process.

The e-commerce business and its meaning and limits are being tested in the courts now. In the last week development, the famous WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.) filed suit of infringement and passing off against an Indian company. The question that was settled was regarding the ‘carries on business’ in cases of e-commerce. The Delhi High Court has concluded that the jurisdiction will be determined by the buyer’s place of residence. This was supported by the interpretation of section 134(2) of The Trademark Act and section 62(2) of The Copyright Act along with section 4 (“contracts would be completed at the place where the acceptance is communicated.”) of the Indian Contract Act.

And here is some new for the ‘firsts’. The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks recently launched a couple of features on online search services for patents and trademarks to make the search process easier and provide transparent results. The features include innovative tools such as “Stock and Flow”—a utility which existed for trademarks, has now been extended to patents also. The Indian Patent Office is the first in the world to achieve such transparency.

Now, its time for some filmy news. The Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to the makers of the film ‘Haider’ on a PIL filed by the Hindu Front for justice on the grounds that the movie was against national interests. The petitioner have criticized that the movie shows the Indian Army in poor light and song sequence was shot in the Markand Sun Temple with actors dancing with their footwear.

Red Chillies Entertainments Private Limited’s film ‘Happy New Year’, starring Deepika Padukone and Shah Rukh Khan which is set to release in theatres across India on 24th October, has recently obtained a John Doe order from the Bombay High Court dated 14th October. It will be interesting to follow this case for what remains to be a potential area of IP.

We hope that this summarizes the last week legal News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Read More