Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism
The Indian Constitution posits a separation between a secular domain regulated by the State, and a religious domain in which it must not interfere. However, courts of law are regularly called upon to resolve a multiplicity of issues related to religion, and their decisions may have a far-reaching im...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Centre d’Etudes de l’Inde et de l’Asie du Sud
|
| Series: | South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/samaj/4451 |
| _version_ | 1797316300081463296 |
|---|---|
| author | Gilles Tarabout |
| author_facet | Gilles Tarabout |
| author_sort | Gilles Tarabout |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Indian Constitution posits a separation between a secular domain regulated by the State, and a religious domain in which it must not interfere. However, courts of law are regularly called upon to resolve a multiplicity of issues related to religion, and their decisions may have a far-reaching impact on religious conceptions and practices. The judicial process requires that standardized, clear-cut definitions of many notions (such as “religion” itself, or “worshipper,” “custom,” “usage,” “religious service,” “religious office,” “religious honor,” etc.) be established in order for them to be manageable within a legal context. Moreover, even though a religious domain may be distinguished from a secular one and protected from State intervention, there are litigations concerning civil rights that involve religious issues on which civil courts may therefore have an explicit duty to rule. Interventions such as imposing legal definitions or deciding on religious matters on which civil rights depend are systemic in character and intrinsic to “modern” law itself. In this they do differ from any explicit policy of state secularism or the no less explicit reformist will of some judges, which may change according to the historical period or to their personal dispositions. This paper comments on several judgments from the upper courts of India chosen from the end of the nineteenth century to the present day, with a view to discussing the disputed limits of this judicial intervention and the resulting entanglement between law and religion. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T03:16:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-08e3a3b6fe78483eb6dedad57ddf5cd2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1960-6060 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T03:16:16Z |
| publisher | Centre d’Etudes de l’Inde et de l’Asie du Sud |
| record_format | Article |
| series | South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-08e3a3b6fe78483eb6dedad57ddf5cd22024-02-12T15:38:51ZengCentre d’Etudes de l’Inde et de l’Asie du SudSouth Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal1960-60601710.4000/samaj.4451Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary HinduismGilles TaraboutThe Indian Constitution posits a separation between a secular domain regulated by the State, and a religious domain in which it must not interfere. However, courts of law are regularly called upon to resolve a multiplicity of issues related to religion, and their decisions may have a far-reaching impact on religious conceptions and practices. The judicial process requires that standardized, clear-cut definitions of many notions (such as “religion” itself, or “worshipper,” “custom,” “usage,” “religious service,” “religious office,” “religious honor,” etc.) be established in order for them to be manageable within a legal context. Moreover, even though a religious domain may be distinguished from a secular one and protected from State intervention, there are litigations concerning civil rights that involve religious issues on which civil courts may therefore have an explicit duty to rule. Interventions such as imposing legal definitions or deciding on religious matters on which civil rights depend are systemic in character and intrinsic to “modern” law itself. In this they do differ from any explicit policy of state secularism or the no less explicit reformist will of some judges, which may change according to the historical period or to their personal dispositions. This paper comments on several judgments from the upper courts of India chosen from the end of the nineteenth century to the present day, with a view to discussing the disputed limits of this judicial intervention and the resulting entanglement between law and religion.https://journals.openedition.org/samaj/4451secularismHinduismcourts of lawessential practicesreligious officeright to worship |
| spellingShingle | Gilles Tarabout Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal secularism Hinduism courts of law essential practices religious office right to worship |
| title | Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism |
| title_full | Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism |
| title_fullStr | Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism |
| title_short | Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism |
| title_sort | ruling on rituals courts of law and religious practices in contemporary hinduism |
| topic | secularism Hinduism courts of law essential practices religious office right to worship |
| url | https://journals.openedition.org/samaj/4451 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gillestarabout rulingonritualscourtsoflawandreligiouspracticesincontemporaryhinduism |