National Law University Odisha
This article attempts to understand the differences between the concept of religious freedom in India and the United States. It seeks to locate these differences in the context of the nature of religion in the two countries and its relationship with society. Moreover, it highlights the changing social realities which necessitate a review of the secularism in these countries.
The article examines the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine in India, tracing its evolution, implications, and critiques. It explores how the doctrine, first derived with the intention to protect religious practices with secular and economic connotations, has evolved into an anathema for religious freedom, empowering the Court to decide people’s faith for them. Analysing its impact, the article suggests alternative approaches, emphasizing individual rights and deference to religious groups. It argues for reconsideration of the ERP doctrine due to its potential to undermine religious freedoms and the judiciary's authority, emphasizing the need for the same.
The discourse over the Uniform Civil Code (hereinafter UCC) was rekindled post its inclusion in the manifesto of BJP for 2019, andhas intensified as we near the 2024 elections. The long-awaited dream of realizing the UCC seems to be in touching distance now, which was once subjected to much clamor and contestation in the Constituent Assembly (CA). The judicial and political environment is more favorable presently than ever before. The article is written with the twin motive to explain why the UCC has remained unenforced for so long; and the need for enforcing it today, while looking at the contemporary successful examples of UCC
The author in this article discussed the interpretation of the Essential Religious Practices Test over the years. He highlights the need to do away with the Essential Religious Practices Test. The author has also proposed an alternative approach to view the essentiality of a religious practice.
In this article, the authors examine and critique the judgment of Hemant Gupta J. and his reasoning in the case of Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka. The piece also suggests that religious freedom and equality needs to be accompanied by a focus on reasonable accommodation.
The author in this piece has analysed the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 as unconstitutional by exploring that it it excludes Dalit muslims and Christians under the ambit of the SC status. The author traces the historical overview of the order and put forths that given the transformative constitutionalism and constitutional morality the following have to included under the SC ambit.
Constitutional Law Society 