Avoid Interpretation Silencing Reformist Voices Within Religion : Mohan Gopal In Sabarimala Reference

Dr G Mohan Gopal on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court's nine-judge Bench hearing the Sabarimala reference to ensure that the constitutional interpretation of religious freedom does not suppress reformist voices emerging from within religious communities.Appearing for an intervenor, Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust, Dr. Gopal argued that the constitutional debate should not be viewed merely as a clash between fundamental rights under Part III and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, but must also account for demands for social justice arising from within religions themselves.“The point I seek to address is one issue which, in my respectful submission, has not received adequate attention so far. That is the demand for social justice emerging from within religious communities themselves,” he submitted.Referring to nineteenth-century social reform movements, Dr. Gopal said many transformative movements had emerged from within religions, led by reformers such as Sri Narayana Guru. He said the constitutional framework should create space for such internal reformist traditions to remain active and complement the transformative values of Part III.“What I seek to submit is this: can space be found within the architecture of the constitutional right to religion itself for these reformist forces within religions to remain active?” he argued.Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant observed that reform initiated from within a religion would also, in his view, be protected under Article 25.Dr. Gopal responded that while such voluntary reform may be possible in principle, judicial interpretation of religious freedom over the last seventy-five years had effectively “silenced” such internal reformist voices. He described the present reference as a rare constitutional opportunity for the Court to conceptually re-examine religion itself and recalibrate the interpretive framework without altering the Constitution."Therefore, this becomes an extraordinary opportunity for a course correction. Not by changing the Constitution, but by recalibrating the interpretive structure in a manner that creates constitutional space for such internal reformist traditions."In support of his submissions, Dr. Gopal relied on a 1947 document submitted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to the Constituent Assembly's Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights, containing Ambedkar's proposed framework on religious freedom.Reading from the document, he pointed out that Ambedkar's formulation guaranteed liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religion, including the right to “profess, preach and convert,” but did not include the word “practice.”Dr. Gopal argued that this omission was significant and reflected an understanding shaped by the oppression experienced by many within religious structures.Questioning broad judicial definitions of Hinduism, Dr. Gopal referred to the 1966 judgment in Swami Yagnapurushdasji, where Chief Justice Gajendragadkar defined a Hindu as one who accepted the Vedas as the highest authority. Gopal argued that such a monolithic definition of Hinduism is unwarranted, as many within the religion do not accept the final authority of the Vedas.“None of us ever said that. Now, I have the highest respect for the Vedas and great admiration for them. But is it a fact that every person today classified as Hindu accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in all spiritual and philosophical matters?So in this manner, we were not merely subsumed into religion, we were consumed by religion. Therefore, from a constitutional point of view, we also have to ask. Where is individual choice? Where is the agency?"Justice BV Nagarathna responded that Hinduism has often been understood as a “way of life,” noting that a person need not necessarily visit temples or perform rituals to remain Hindu.“If that understanding comes through in the reference judgment, it would provide enormous constitutional relief,” Dr. Gopal replied.Justice Nagarathna further observed that religiosity can exist independent of formal ritual practice, saying many people may not even have a prayer room or sacred space in their homes but remain deeply religious in their psyche.In his concluding remarks, Dr. Gopal cautioned against an interpretation that would allow any group to declare itself a religious denomination and thereby claim immunity from constitutional guarantees under Part III.“If the argument of the opposite side is accepted, then any group in this country can simply declare itself to be a religious denomination and thereby acquire the power to supersede Article 25 and the guarantees contained in Part III,” he submitted."Put most strongly, they would effectively acquire a right to secede from Part III of the Constitution with respect to anything they choose to characterise as a matter of religion, without any constitutional guardrails such as essentiality. In effect, that would amount to a gross misinterpretation of the constitutional right to freedom of...

Avoid Interpretation Silencing Reformist Voices Within Religion : Mohan Gopal In Sabarimala Reference

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

He argued that an interpretation allowing the clergy to overpower individual conscience must be shunned.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Avoid Interpretation Silencing Reformist Voices Within Religion : Mohan Gopal In Sabarimala Reference

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

He argued that an interpretation allowing the clergy to overpower individual conscience must be shunned.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers