Tolerance Should Be Shown Towards Other Religious Practices; This Country Takes Pride In Unity In Diversity: Madras HC
Context
The Madras High Court emphasized that India’s strength lies in its pluralism and diversity. The Court observed that:
Tolerance must be shown towards practices of other religions.
Every citizen has a constitutional and moral duty to respect the beliefs, rituals, and traditions of others.
India takes pride in “Unity in Diversity”, and this principle underpins the country’s legal and social framework.
This came in the context of cases where religious harmony was at risk due to intolerance, disputes over practices, or attempts to interfere with rituals of other communities.
Key Legal Principles
Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28 of the Constitution)
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Article 26 guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
Restriction: No one can violate the rights of other communities while exercising their own rights.
Secularism and Harmony
India is a secular state, meaning the state treats all religions equally.
Courts consistently emphasize that intolerance or disruption of another community’s religious practices is unconstitutional.
Doctrine of Unity in Diversity
The legal framework protects diversity and encourages mutual respect and tolerance.
Any act undermining this principle is viewed seriously by courts.
Important Case Laws
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Governments and citizens must respect all religions equally.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
While dealing with personal laws, the Court emphasized constitutional morality over rigid customs, promoting harmony among communities.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
The Supreme Court upheld the right of students to practice their religion peacefully, stressing tolerance and mutual respect in schools.
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)
Courts held that religious conversions must be voluntary, and tolerance is necessary to maintain peace and social harmony.
Madras HC Specific Observation
The Court explicitly stated that citizens must tolerate and respect the religious practices of others.
Any attempt to impose one’s beliefs on another community is contrary to constitutional values.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Principle | Case Law Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom of Religion | Right to practice, profess, and propagate religion | Articles 25–28 |
| Secularism | Equal treatment of all religions | S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) |
| Religious Tolerance | Citizens must respect other religions’ practices | Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) |
| Constitutional Morality | Practices must align with peace and harmony | Shayara Bano (2017) |
| Unity in Diversity | India’s identity relies on pluralism | Madras HC ruling |
✅ In essence: The Madras High Court reinforced that tolerance and mutual respect among religious communities are constitutional duties, and India’s pride in unity in diversity is protected by law. Any interference, intolerance, or coercion against another community’s religious practices is legally impermissible.
RELATED Blog
0 comments