SC dismisses plea seeking direction to make guidelines for ‘protection’ of Hinduism in India
SC dismisses plea seeking direction to make guidelines for ‘protection’ of Hinduism in India
The Supreme Court of India, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, rejected a petition that sought a direction to the Centre to establish guidelines for the “protection” of Hinduism in the country. The court expressed a reluctance to entertain a petition with such a specific prayer, suggesting that it did not align with the usual priorities and scope of the judiciary.
The decision underscores the court’s discretion in choosing the cases it hears, typically focusing on matters related to fundamental rights, constitutional provisions, and broader public interest. Petitions seeking specific guidelines for the protection of a particular religion may be seen as outside the court’s customary purview, and the rejection of the plea reflects the court’s inclination to adhere to its established areas of intervention.
The Supreme Court, in its consideration of the petition seeking guidelines for the protection of Hinduism, referred to the specific prayer made in the plea. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, expressed concerns about the broader implications of such a request.
The bench noted that entertaining a petition seeking protection for Hinduism could set a precedent and potentially lead to similar petitions for the protection of other religions, including Islam or Christianity. This observation reflects the court’s cautious approach to requests for specific guidelines related to the protection of individual religions, recognizing the need to maintain a balanced and uniform approach across different faiths.
The court’s concern about avoiding a precedent that might open the door for similar requests for other religions underscores its commitment to maintaining consistency and impartiality in addressing matters related to religious protection and guidelines.
The individual from Uttar Pradesh who filed the plea appeared in person to argue his case. However, the Supreme Court’s response suggests that the petition was not deemed within the usual jurisdiction of the court or aligned with constitutional principles guiding the protection of religious rights in India.
When the petitioner referred to the educational curriculum, the bench emphasized that the responsibility of establishing the curriculum rests with the government. The court observed that the petitioner cannot dictate what others, specifically the government, should do in this regard. This underscores the court’s recognition of the separation of powers and the government’s authority in matters related to education and curriculum development.
The court’s response indicates that the petition, seeking specific guidelines for the protection of Hinduism and references to educational curriculum, was not viewed as falling within the customary purview of the court’s intervention. This decision reinforces the principle that while individuals have the right to express their opinions and beliefs, the government holds the authority to formulate policies, including those related to education.
The Supreme Court’s observations in dismissing the plea suggest a commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and the separation of powers. The court emphasized that while individuals have the right to propagate their views, they cannot compel others, especially the government, to adopt specific guidelines or practices, particularly in matters related to education and curriculum development.
The decision reinforces the principle that the state holds the authority to formulate educational policies and guidelines. It underscores the distinct roles of individuals and the government, with the latter having the prerogative to shape educational curricula and policies based on broader considerations.
The Supreme Court’s alignment with broader legal principles in this case underscores its commitment to striking a balance between individual rights and state authority. Emphasizing the constitutional framework that governs matters related to education and the expression of beliefs in India, the court reinforces the idea that the state has a crucial role in formulating policies, particularly in areas as significant as education.
By maintaining this balance, the court upholds the constitutional principles that safeguard both individual freedoms and the government’s responsibility to set guidelines and policies in the interest of the broader public. This commitment ensures that legal decisions align with the democratic principles and constitutional values that govern the Indian legal system.
