State can interfere with religious practices if...: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday said the secular nature of the State does not prevent it from interfering with the practices and attitudes related to religion when they in larger public interest impede development and the right to equality.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said while it is true that the constituent assembly had not agreed to include the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble, the Constitution was a living document, with the power given to Parliament to amend it.

"However, the 'secular' nature of the state does not prevent the elimination of attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion, when they, in the larger public interest, impede development and the right to equality. In essence, the concept of secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme's pattern," the bench said.

In a landmark verdict, the top court dismissed the pleas challenging the 1976 amendment to the Constitution adding terms "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" to the preamble, observing Parliament's amending power extended to the Preamble too.

It said, "In 1949, the term 'secular' was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed to religion. Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the state neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith."

CJI Khanna said the state maintains no religion of its own, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience along with the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their chosen religion, and all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights.

Rejecting the pleas on grounds, including the delay of over 44 years, the top court said terms like "socialist" and "secular" were "integral to the Preamble" making the "prayers particularly questionable".