Senior Advocate Gopal Subaramanium has presented arguments before the court emphasizing the constitutional separation between the state and religion. Supporting the submissions of the Solicitor General, Subaramanium contended that state control through regulation must be minimal and narrowly tailored to meet specific objectives.
Defining Religious Denominations
A central point of the argument focused on the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Subaramanium questioned whether the expression “religious denomination” is religion-specific or applies to all religions.
He suggested that the court consider whether Article 25(1) provides general principles for all persons—including the freedom of conscience, religion, and the right to freely practice and propagate religion—even as Article 26 applies to every religious denomination of whatever kind.
Course Correction in Legal Precedent
Subaramanium argued that the way the Shirur Mutt case has been interpreted over the years now requires “course correction.” He posited that the meaning of “denomination” should be broad enough to encompass any group of adherents of a religion who organize themselves.
According to the advocate, such a group could constitute a denomination if they satisfy the three test criteria established in J Mukherjee’s judgment.
Potential Legal Implications
The court’s consideration of these interpretations may impact how the state regulates religious practices moving forward. A possible next step could involve the bench determining if a restricted meaning of “denomination” is applicable or if the broader interpretation suggested by Subaramanium should prevail.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the proposed limit on state control over religion?
Senior Advocate Gopal Subaramanium argued that state control by way of regulation must be minimal and narrowly tailored to meet certain objectives.
How does Article 25(1) differ from Article 26 in this argument?
The argument suggests that Article 25(1) contains general principles for all persons regarding freedom of conscience, religion, practice, and propagation, whereas Article 26 pertains to every religious denomination of whatever kind.
What criteria must be met to constitute a denomination?
According to Subaramanium, if followers of a religion organize themselves and satisfy the three test criteria as per J Mukherjee’s judgment, they could constitute a denomination.
Do you believe the state should maintain a minimal role in the regulation of religious denominations?
