The Preamble to the Constitution of India begins with the words:
"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic..."
Secularism is the lifeblood that has to run through the ethos of India’s constitutionalism.
Because how else is a government supposed to govern its subjects unless it imperatively applies the non-discriminatory viewpoint while exerting the duties as the executive and legislature of the State.
Secularism as an ideal cannot be subverted by the proportionalism in democratic representation that majority groups try to impinge upon the political denominations.
For a true democratisation of the state of Goa, religious tolerance should not only be an implied right but should be practised as a conscious duty.
In envisioning a scenario in the Goan community where discrimination on the grounds of religion may be viewed as a measure that is calculated to conveniently appease factions of a certain strata of the electorate, the consequent nomination of peoples representative from such a conservative constituency would amount to “Theocracy” which is a form of autocracy in which one or more deities are recognised as supreme ruling authorities, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries who manage the government's daily affairs (Oxford English Dictionary, 2015).
Moreover, when article 15 of the Constitution abolishes ‘Untouchability’, and Article 14 (equality before law) upholds the secular ethos by ensuring that all citizens are treated equally without religious bias, and while Articles 25–28 guarantee the right to freedom of religion, which is a fundamental right for all citizens, then why should religious beliefs be hampered by the fear mongering of certain conservative factions of any given religion in the State of Goa?
Incidentally, clause 2 of article 15 envisages:
“(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.” (Article 15, Constitution of India).
According to Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates (2023) in their article entitled: The Spirit of Secularism: India’s Journey Through Landmark Cases and Article 25 which was published on 25 August, 2023:
The word “Secularism” is dynamic and cannot be interpreted in a restricted sense. The Supreme Court of India in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC has defined the word secularism, stating its meaning as ‘equal treatment of all religions.’
The Indian Judiciary has also, time and again, played a significant role in emphasising the importance of religious freedom by upholding the right of every individual to follow their religious beliefs, passing judgments like The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v Shri Lakshmindar Thirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt 1954 AIR 282, State of Karnataka v (Dr.) Praveen Bhai Togadia (2004) 9 SCC, and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (AIR 2017 SCC 1388). (Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates, 2023).
In SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND OTHERS Vs. MULDAS BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND ANOTHER, the hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 14/01/1966 observed as follows:
“Whilst we are dealing with this broad and comprehensive, aspect of Hindu religion, it may be permissible to enquire what, according to this religion, is the ultimate goal of humanity?
It is the release and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births and rebirths; Moksha or Nirvana, which is the ultimate aim of Hindu religion and philosophy, represents the state of absolute absorption and assimilation of the individual soul with the infinite. What are the means to attain this end? On this vital issue, there is great divergence of views; some emphasise the importance of Gyan or knowledge, while others extol the virtues of Bhakti or devotion; and yet others insist upon the paramount importance of the performance of duties with a heart full of devotion and mind inspired by true knowledge. In this sphere again, there is diversity of opinion, though all are agreed about the ultimate goal. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply the traditional tests in determining the extent of the jurisdiction of Hindu religion. It can be safely described as a way of life based on certain basic concepts to which we have already referred…”
Therefore, in conclusion, it would be apt to elicit the prudence of the state’s governance structures through the well established Judicial Precedents which have been neatly summarised by Vikramjit Banerjee and Sumeet Malik in the “Changing Perceptions of Secularism” (1998) 7 SCC (Jour) 3:
In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra (1976) 2 SCC 17, the Supreme Court went on to define the concept of secularism in the realm of philosophy and in utilitarian terms. The Court set the role of the State to be neutral or impartial in extending its benefit to citizens of all castes and creeds and cast a duty on the State to ensure through its laws that disabilities are not imposed based on persons practising or professing any particular religion.
The Apex Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 ruled that religion and temporal activities do not mix. Freedom and tolerance of religion is only to the extent of permitting pursuit of spiritual life that is different from the secular life. The latter falls in the domain of the affairs of the State. The Court further said that "the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited." (Supra n. 10 para 148).
Ramaswamy, J., in his separate opinion declared that the State has the duty to ensure secularism by law or an executive order (Id., para 252).
