Why in the News?
- The Supreme Court of India raised a key question during the Sabarimala review case:
- Should judges rise above personal religious beliefs while deciding constitutional matters?
Core Issue
- Whether judges must separate personal religion from constitutional duty
- Debate on:
- Freedom of conscience vs religious practices
- Scope of judicial review over religion
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 25
- Freedom of: Conscience, Profession, practice and propagation of religion
Article 26
- Right of religious denominations to: Manage their own affairs
Key Observations by the Court
1. Judges and Personal Beliefs
- Judges must:
- Rise above personal religious views
- Apply constitutional principles objectively
2. Conscience vs Religion
- Question raised: Is conscience broader than religion?
- Suggestion: Conscience may not be limited to religion
3. Internal vs External Dimension
- Freedom of conscience: Internal belief system
- Freedom of religion: External expression of belief
Legal Interpretation Emerging
- Article 25 contains:
- Two distinct rights: Freedom of conscience and Freedom to practice religion
- These are related but not identical
Key Argument (Rajeev Dhavan)
- Judges act under the Constitution, not personal faith
- Freedom of conscience: Broader and independent right
Important Concept
Freedom of Conscience
- Right to: Hold beliefs
- Think independently
- Does not necessarily require: Religious expression
| [2017] Which one of the following objectives is not embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution of India? (a) Liberty of thought (b) Economic liberty (c) Liberty of expression (d) Liberty of belief |
