STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

Courts should interpret law, not morality 

A legal fiction is a term coined by sociologists to describe widely held beliefs that may not be capable of being proved; they may even run contrary to natural principles of the universe and nature.

Published: 13th November 2018 04:00 AM  |   Last Updated: 13th November 2018 02:02 AM   |  A+A-

A legal fiction is a term coined by sociologists to describe widely held beliefs that may not be capable of being proved; they may even run contrary to natural principles of the universe and nature. The most common and important examples are religion, justice and equality. The first cannot be proved scientifically, the second and third are both against the laws of nature and exist more in the ideal than in the real world. But legal fictions have evolved because they are necessary for a stable and peaceful social order. Precisely for that reason they should not be tinkered with. India’s higher judiciary seems to be missing this point.

Starting (in recent times) from the Jain Santhara case in Rajasthan (in which the Rajasthan High Court held that the voluntary taking of Samadhi by a Jain was illegal and amounted to attempt to commit suicide), to the banning of animal sacrifice in temples by the Himachal High Court, jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, triple talaq and finally Sabarimala, our courts appear to have mounted a full scale assault on the dogmas and traditional beliefs and practices of different religions. In some cases they have had to roll back orders in the face of large scale outrage and defiance, sometimes even by state governments and ruling dispensations. But, as the 

Sabarimala order shows, they are unwilling to learn the appropriate lessons.
And the primary lesson is this: do not test one legal fiction by the standards of another, or by the standards of the ideal or logic or science, for then all will fail the test. If, for example, the concept of justice was subjected to the test of equity, fairness and common sense it too would fail and be found wanting. Not without basis did Shakespeare declaim that the law is an ass. Therefore, the judiciary trying to assert its supremacy over religion is a recipe for disaster that can lead to a collapse of the social contract held together by the counter balancing forces of many legal fictions, just as the universe is held in place by the opposing gravitational pulls of millions of planets.

As long as a religious practice or tradition does not physically harm a person or deprive them of a basic fundamental right, there should be no reason for a secular state to interfere. Religious reforms have to come from within, not imposed by the courts at the behest of opportunistic political parties or publicity seeking activists. The reforms in Christianity and Hinduism were driven by people like Calvin, Martin Luther, the Buddha, Vivekananda and Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to mention just a few, not by judges acting on PILs. There are no short cuts to religious reform, it is painstaking work to change centuries old mindsets, and the law invariably follows the change, not precede it. As George Burns said, we should not mix up the legal with the legitimate: for a law or a judicial pronouncement to be legitimate it must be accepted by the majority of people. So far it has not happened in India.

Even worse than unilateral judicial dictats simpliciter are those which are selective in nature and lack consistency—for example, the Sabarimala and firecrackers judgments of the Supreme Court. Firstly, there cannot be any comparison in the unconstitutionalities involved in the two cases. The first involved only the grievance of a few ladies (none of them, as far as I know, devotees of Lord Ayyappa) that they were not allowed to enter the temple, which is not a fundamental right. The second case involves the health—indeed, life and death—of tens of millions: the report of WHO released on the 29th of October this year says that 100,000 children below the age of five died of air pollution in India in 2016. Eighty people die of the same cause in Delhi every day. And yet, the Supreme Court saw it fit to allow the entry of all women into Sabarimala but did not deem it necessary to completely ban the manufacture, sale and

use of firecrackers. I fail to see the logic or consistency of “reform” in these cases.
Secondly, one would expect our jurisprudence would be mature and wise enough to sift the essential from the collateral. Surely, the restriction on entry into a place of worship is more integral to a religion than the bursting of crackers? It doesn’t make sense to apply the same standards of constitutionality to both, but even that was not done in this case—in Sabarimala the full weight of the Constitution was lowered on the temple, while in the firecrackers case the law was relaxed to partially permit the  freedom to “practice religion” and “conduct business”! Where is the judicial logic in this? We allow a practice that kills millions (more than sati ever did) but declare illegal something that just inconveniences a few.
These are the pitfalls of the lately discovered concept of “constitutional morality”.

There is no such thing. The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral one, and should be so read: the job of the courts is to interpret law, not morality, for then they intrude into the sphere of faith and widely held beliefs and traditions. The latter is a slippery slope without end, for what else will they question next—the denial of priestly roles to women? Hereditary practice of appointment of priests and ulemas? Lack of reservation in such appointments? Monopoly of higher castes in the religious hierarchies? Will they order the Catholic church to approve abortion? Will they insist on scientific proof of the existence of various gods? Faith cannot be subjected to the rigours of cold, impersonal, sceptical rationality. Sometimes it takes a poet to express this troubling dilemma in suitable words; here are the words of one of the greatest of them: Khalil Gibran:
“Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.”
It should not, for then there will be no oasis left.

Avay Shukla
served in the IAS for 35 years and retired as Additional Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh
Email: avayshukla@gmail.com



Comments(15)

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

  • H S KUMAR

    Well presented. Its pity that agendas construed on limited understanding is thrust upon in a majoritarian manner as if it is from the horse's mouth. Sometime its confusing - are they from the "Supreme..... cult"
    3 years ago reply
  • mats

    re abortions and Catholic Church
    3 years ago reply
  • AK

    Saying "to be legitimate it must be accepted by the majority of people" hasn't been seen in India for past several hundred years as majority has been ruled by a handful leftists minds in India.
    3 years ago reply
  • Antz

    The author is deliberately misleading people. Yes
    3 years ago reply
  • Antz

    What does the author want
    3 years ago reply
  • Anupam Shukla

    Beautifully scripted.Straight and simple. Courts are very selective and arbitrary. Crackers were wholeheartedly bursted and women too
    3 years ago reply
  • dilip varma

    An excellent article
    3 years ago reply
  • S Kumar

    In the name of tradition
    3 years ago reply
  • Mahesh Suresh

    Urban Naxal sympathizing supreme court is now is session.
    3 years ago reply
  • s.kurup

    A sensible well argued piece.Alas!people are "most assured of what they are least aware of ".kurup
    3 years ago reply
  • krish

    Agree with the article. Courts should deal only constitution and law.
    3 years ago reply
  • Gopalakrishnan B

    Very sensible article after a long time !!
    3 years ago reply
  • Parthosarothy sengupta

    The 2019 Calendar
    3 years ago reply
  • Ram

    An excellent article
    3 years ago reply
  • Ram

    The real problem is in not having understood that the Indian system of idol worship comes under thanthra shaasthra
    3 years ago reply
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp