It is undeniable that India is a secular state by virtue of its constitution. The word secular was not used in the 1950 Constitution’s original draught. However, it is clear from the discussions in the Constituent Assembly in the 1940s that the Indian Republic was conceived of and established as a secular republic.
The Indian judiciary, which has incorporated this quality into the elements that make up the fundamental structure of the Constitution, has repeatedly affirmed the secular nature of the state. This means that Parliament cannot repeal it even with a supermajority.
The political sphere was where this notion of secularism was frequently disputed in the Indian setting. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is currently in power, has been working harder and harder to redefine this part of the republic by bringing it closer to a Hindu majoritarian viewpoint. However, in the legal community, there was largely agreement over the Constitution’s secular credentials.
This still holds true today. But earlier, it seems that a tiny bit of progress was made in defining the characteristics of this Indian secularism. The ideas of equality and pluralism are severely impacted by this, especially at a time when majoritarian politics are on the rise.
In a contentious case from Karnataka where Muslim school pupils were denied the right to wear the headscarf in classes, the Supreme Court of India issued a split decision on October 12. On October 10, Justice Hemant Gupta, who is now retired, supported the state government’s executive directives that allowed the hijab to be banned from classrooms. The other judge on the panel, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, ruled it invalid. Since no verdict has been reached, the chief justice will now decide how to handle this matter.
Justice Gupta’s study of the characteristics of Indian secularism and his decision to sustain the discriminatory laws against the hijab are at odds with each other, according to his judgment.
News Mania Desk
