Article 25 of our Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of freedom of religion as also freedom of conscience. The guarantee extends to atheists and agnostics as also practitioners of various religions. It guarantees a person the right not to believe in God. Our Supreme Court in its celebrated decision in 1954 ruled that “religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic”. Belief or non-belief in religion is based on individual convictions. It is essentially a private matter of choice and no authority can claim the right to question a person for his reasons for practising a particular religion or for not accepting conventional religion.
Recently, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices Abhay Oka and A S Chandurkar directed the Union and state governments “not to compel any individual to declare or specify his religion in any form or any declaration”. The high court’s judgment is premised on the principle that India is a secular democratic republic with no state religion. The court emphasised that there is complete freedom for every individual to decide if he wants to adopt or profess any religion or not. He may not believe in any religion. If he is professing a particular religion, he can give up the religion and claim that he does not belong to any religion. There is no law which compels a citizen or any individual to have a religion. Accordingly, the high court ruled that no state authority could infringe upon a person’s freedom of conscience by compelling him to make a declaration about his religion. The high court’s salutary observations are the need of the hour in the present environment of intolerance of persons not professing any ‘religion’ or professing a religion different from that of the vast majority.
Bad Mouthing Lawyers & Doctors: Lawyers and doctors were traditionally regarded as members of a noble profession. Unfortunately, that is not the general public perception. Lawyers are termed as ‘liars’ and Shakespeare’s famous lines “The first thing we do is to kill all the lawyers”, said in a different context, are often quoted. The image of doctors is also far from flattering. There are horrific tales about some doctors refusing to perform the subsequent stage of the operation unless their fees are paid in advance. Doctors have been recently condemned as ‘executioners’ and ‘flesh-eating devils’ and described as middlemen making money by cutting open the bellies of people by RJD MP known as Pappu Yadav.
After making allowance for exaggeration in these tirades, it must be conceded that lawyers and doctors generally have forgotten that their profession is service-oriented, not a commercial venture for profit-making. It is imperative that legal and medical services, which are greatly needed by the public, are made easily available at affordable cost. Prime Minister Narendra Modi may well take innovative steps in this direction.
Rule of Law in Tamil Nadu: J Jayalalithaa is greatly admired, almost worshipped, by members of her party and also by large sections of people in Tamil Nadu. Their grief because of her conviction is understandable. What is not at all acceptable is recourse to violence and contemptuous references to the judge who delivered the detailed judgment. Jayalalithaa has every right to appeal and apply for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. But why did the high court initially agree to convene a special session during vacation to hear her petition? The crux of the matter is: Would the same treatment be accorded to an ordinary citizen? Any special treatment to Jayalalithaa would violate the basic tenet of the rule of law: However high you may be, the law is above you. Judgment of a court of law must be accepted till it is reversed or modified. That is the bedrock of every civilised society, Tamil Nadu included.
Solisorabjee@gmail.com
Sorabjee is a former Attorney General of India