Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Secularism - Coggle Diagram

- - - - there should be a fundamental change in the hearts and minds of the people to eliminate it
  - - - objectives
        
        to address inter-religious marriages
        
        To establish marriage as a secular institution in which all religious formalities are absent and it just requires registration
      - Conditions
        
        both parties involved should not have any other subsisting valid marriage. i.s resulting marriage should be monogamous
        
        Age criteria Groom - min age - 21 bride - 18
        
        Parties should not fall within the degree of prohibited relationship. (if one is a lineal ascendant of the other like father -daughter, son-mom etc
        
        Parties should be competent in reference to their mental capacity to the extent they're able to give valid consent for the marriage
      - provisions
        
        Marriage is solemnized by way of registration
        
        to allow solemnization of marriages w/o going through any religious customs or rituals
  - - - Violates Right to privacy
        
        affects privacy of choice
        
        Right to privacy - fundamental right by SC in Puttaswamy case 2007
      - breaches basic st of C
        
        state interfering in a civil union of marriage - hinders freedom and dignity of individual
        
        freedom and dignity of ind - basic st
      - targetting muslims
        
        to regulate religious conversions these laws focus on restricting HIndu women from marrying Muslim men in name of protecting them
      - deeply patriarchal
        
        treat adult women as property -
        
        wants women to marry men of family's choice who belong to same caste/religion
    - - to regulate marriages b/w Aryans and & Non Aryans to protect German blood and honor
    - - call to safeguard principles set out by C- all cz are equal, ideals of freedom
      - suggestion
        
        SC should take suo moto action and strike these laws if it wants to preserve the basic st of C
- - - - wall of separation is porous i.e state can intervene in religious matters to give progressive voices within every r and to allow disagreement with some aspects of r
      - 1.. However r is strictly prohibited to intervene in state matters hence disallowing of mobilization of electoral support on religious lines
      - this principle of separation in context of Indian secularism is k/a "Principled distance"- the concept by Rajeev Bhargava
  - - - there exists a strict separation of state and religion
      - French secular state does not promote any one religion or discourage any as long as the beliefs and practices do not interfere with state or with other citizen's rights
      - due to its commitment to total separation overt religious activities and symbols are banned in public space.
  - - - sphere of politics is separated from sphere of religion
      - State shall not adopt any religion as state religion
      - No one shall be discriminated on the grounds of which religion he/she follows
      - soft secularism
- - - - would promote uniformity in personal laws
      - 2. will ensure stregthening of the essence of true secularism
      - promote unity which would further lead to National cohesion
      - 4. help in ending the vote bank politics based on religion
      - also help in Women empowerment as it is a major step towards gender justice
      - 7. it will bring about better laws which will help in promoting human rights
      - 6. help reduce burden on legal system
    - - act as a threat to the existing diversity
      - 2. it often leads to development of a perception that it is the imposition of the majoritarian culture which act as a breeding ground for social unrest
      - changes in laws in favour of women for eg Hindu inheritance Act has neither brought about any change in the %age of property held by them nor in their social status
      - 4. diff religious communities have different personal laws which might lead to politicization of entire issue
      - 5.violation of FR under A-25
    - - uniform laws to govern personal life- marriage, divorce, adoption, maintenance
    - - with the belief that identity politics and recognition of social differences might be a threat to state unity, there is a strong demand to impose UCC
      - However, democracies can be established in polities which are multicultural
      - efforts should be made to end the cultural exclusion, dev of multiple and complementary identities
      - Framing of responsive policies to promote unity in diversity
      - National cohesion does not require imposition of common identity but accommodation of cultural diversity
      - hence any decision wrt A-44 should be on the basis of popular consensus
  - - - journey
        
        Shah Bano, Daniel latiffi, Shamim Ara, Shayra Bano
    - - Sabrimala
        
        age old practice since temple existence
        
        here the trust is admin + body responsible for religious practices
        
        sabrimala case
        
        issues
        
        right to equality vs right to r
        
        faith vs rationality
        
        attitude of s, ie regressive and patriarchal
        
        pilgrims - observe celibacy for 41 days before going to temple
        
        women of 10-50 yrs - entry denied
        
        reasons for resctriction
        
        menstruating women - regardeds unclean by hindu religion -defile the premises
        
        distraction to male devotees
        
        Lord Ayyapa - laid down rules about this pilgrimage - shunned all worldy desires - taken oath of celibacy
        
        in honour of Malikapurathama
        
        arguements
        
        in sabrimala, there is no discrimination - just some restrictions due to the celibate nature of god
        
        it constitutes essential religous practice and court cant practice judiciopapism
        
        right to privacy of god needs to be respected
        
        art 17 cant be extended to gender/sex discrimination
        
        counter
        
        ban on entry of women is based on patriarchal belief
        
        womens' right to worship is a consttutional right
        
        against art 17 - 'doctrine of living tree' - c is open to wider and more inclusive interpretation
        
        travancore board itself has said that practice is not essential
        
        timeline
        
        2016- controversial statement by temple chief - "will allow entry oto women only after a machine was invented to detect if they were pure"
        
        2018 - SC- this practice is unconstitutional
        
        reasons - violation of fr
        
        a- 14 - not treaitng = with men
        
        a- 15 discrimination based on sex
        
        a- 17 endorses untochability
        
        a- 21
        
        a - 25 freedom of religion
        
        arguments inf favour of sc judgement
        
        violation of right of hindu women to practice their religious beliefs - makes - a 25(1) ineffective
        
        public order, morilaity and health cannot be used as a device to restrict the freedom to freely practice religion and to dicriminate against women of a certain age group by denying their legal right to enter and offer their prayers
        
        present scenario
      - Haji Ali
      - Sh
    - - ERP doctrine
        
        court/state can interfere in matters which are not essential (has to be given in religion itself) - but court/state itself cant decide which matter is essential or not.
      - judiciopapism
        
        when court/state starts deciding which practice is essential or not
        
        eg - Raj HC Santhara = Suicide
- - - - Church har jaga ghusta tha
      - i.e ab se economy, society polity- no more be governed by church
      - diff sections of society won't be governed by the religion
      - Religion now only a matter of faith
    - - role of religion confined to pvt space only