Justice BV Nagarathna, a respected member of the Supreme Court, recently made a notable statement regarding the relationship between the state and religion. In her remarks, she emphasized that the state does not owe loyalty to any specific religion and that the Constitution of India does not permit preferential treatment based on religious majority.

The State does not owe loyalty to any one religion and the Constitution requires that the religious majority in the country shouldn’t enjoy any preferential treatment, Supreme Court Judge Justice BV Nagarathna underscored on Tuesday.

“Secularism in the sense that it meant under the Indian Constitution is that the State does not owe loyalty to any one religion. The State equally respects all religions. The vision of the founding fathers was that a nation transcending all diversities of religion, caste and creed; to bring about a new social order based on justice, social, economic and political aspects. The Constitution has sought to establish a secular order under which the religious majority of the population does not enjoy any preferential treatment at hands of the State and religious rights of the minorities are upheld.”

The Judge was speaking at the launch of a Book titled “Constitutional Ideals” organised by DAKSH.

In addition to her views on the relationship between the state and religion, Justice BV Nagarathna also commented on the concept of secularism in India. She pointed out that unlike in Western countries, secularism in India did not arise from a conflict between the State and the Church. Instead, she believes that India's secularism is deeply rooted in its rich history, culture, and the need to accommodate its diverse population.

Justice Nagarathna also expressed her concerns about the lack of integrity and the prevalence of ill-gotten wealth in society. She noted that the fundamental duties outlined in the Constitution aim to foster "ideal citizenship," but unfortunately, the current reality is far from that ideal. She criticized the fact that possession of disproportionate assets is often overlooked or treated lightly in today's society, which undermines the principles of integrity and ethical conduct.

These remarks shed light on the challenges India faces in upholding the values of integrity and combating corruption. They highlight the need for individuals and institutions to prioritize ethical behavior and work towards a society where ill-gotten wealth and lack of integrity are not accepted norms.

Justice BV Nagarathna's critique serves as a reminder that there is still work to be done to achieve the ideals of a just and ethical society. It encourages reflection on the current state of affairs and calls for a collective effort to uphold the principles of integrity and transparency in all aspects of public and private life.

“The essence of fundamental duties is to achieve ideal citizenship. It’s not just the relationship between the citizen and the state and duties of a citizen to the state, it also encompasses duties of one citizen to another. For this, we need to cherish and practise values of the Indian Constitution. Among the constitutional values, integrity is the highest. But alas! With the passing of every year, integrity is losing its value in our total value system. Bribery, corruption and flaunting of ill-gotten wealth has become the order of the day and has been entrenched in Indian society. Disproportionate assets possessed by certain persons, especially by those in public life are hardly thought of as blackmarks in our Indian society.”

Justice BV Nagarathna expressed her concern about the changing perception of affordability in today's society. According to her, the value attached to this concept has significantly diminished over time. In the past, people used to carefully consider their expenses, especially when it came to indulging in luxuries or material comforts. However, she noted that the current situation has undergone a complete transformation.

Justice Nagarathna lamented that the notion of affordability seems to have lost its significance in contemporary times. There appears to be a shift in attitudes towards spending, where people are less cautious about their financial choices and more inclined to indulge in luxuries without much consideration.

These remarks shed light on the evolving consumer culture and the potential consequences of a society that places less emphasis on financial prudence. Justice Nagarathna's observation serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible spending and the need for individuals to exercise discretion when it comes to their financial decisions.

Her comments prompt reflection on the evolving values and priorities in today's world, urging individuals to reevaluate their relationship with material possessions and consider the long-term implications of their financial choices. It serves as a call to cultivate a more mindful and responsible approach towards affordability in order to foster a balanced and sustainable society. She said: 

“While the country has grown economically, and there's greater generation of income among the people, what is of great worry is disproportionate assets. That is income from other than known sources. We may progress as a nation, economically and socially, claim ourselves to be good citizens, have a great Constitution. But if we lack integrity, what is it at the end?”

Speaking on ‘liberty’, Justice Nagarathna opined that during the initial days, the Supreme Court did not move with the spirit of Chapter III and this changed after a few decades. "They were more cautious and circumspect. The judicial balance was not really tilted completely in favour of the spirit behind Chapter III. But in the subsequent decades, the Supreme Court and the courts in India have interpreted Chapter III in such a way that it has expanded, particularly Article 14 and 21 to include rights of the highest amplitude such as right to bodily integrity, right to die with dignity, right to reproductive choice, right to self-identification of gender, right to privacy”.

Terming Chapter III as an open cauldron, the judge said that it is a space were various rights can be thrown into. "It's not saturated; it's not full. There's a lot of space for the Courts to ensure that many more rights are recognised and for that we require, not only enlightened citizenry but also an enlightened var to assist the courts to merely recognize these rights."

Justice Nagarathna's statement highlights the principle of secularism, which is an essential aspect of the Indian Constitution. Secularism in this context means that the state remains neutral and impartial in matters of religion, treating all faiths equally and with respect.

Her statement has sparked conversations and debates about the role of religion in governance and public policy. Some argue that religious majorities should receive certain privileges due to their numerical strength or historical significance. However, Justice Nagarathna's stance challenges this notion, emphasizing that the Constitution does not allow preferential treatment based on religious majority.

Supporters of Justice Nagarathna's position argue that granting preferential treatment to a religious majority would undermine the principles of equality and secularism, potentially marginalizing religious minorities. They believe that the state should ensure equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, in order to foster an inclusive and harmonious society.

Opponents may argue that certain religious communities have unique needs and historical grievances that deserve special attention from the state. They may contend that providing preferential treatment to the majority community is a way to address historical imbalances and promote social cohesion.

This conversation stimulates broader debates about the interpretation of secularism, the role of religion in public life, and the balance between individual religious freedoms and state neutrality. It encourages a critical examination of constitutional principles and invites a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding religion-state relations in a diverse and multicultural society.

In her remarks, the Judge highlighted the significance of fraternity, which she believes is often the least understood of the four ideals mentioned in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. According to her, fostering a sense of fraternity is crucial in strengthening democratic values, especially in a diverse society like India where people have religious, linguistic, and other differences. By embracing fraternity, individuals can overcome these differences and work towards a more inclusive and harmonious society.

The event concluded with a discussion centered around a newly-launched book authored by Senior Advocate and Co-founder of Daksh, Harish Narasappa, along with Associate Professor at NLSIU, Bangalore, Aparna Chandra. The book likely delves into important legal and societal issues, providing valuable insights and perspectives for the audience.

The Judge's emphasis on fraternity and the subsequent discussion based on the newly-launched book underscores the significance of promoting unity and understanding in a diverse nation like India. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing efforts needed to bridge gaps and nurture a collective spirit of fraternity for the betterment of society as a whole.