Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The recent public religious ceremony attended by both the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Prime Minister has raised the question about the role of religion in government. This incident aligns with the principles of secularism and separation of powers in India. And questions whether high-ranking officials can participate in religious events publicly without compromising their constitutional duties. 

What is the Main Issue in the Current Incident? 

• Oath of office and secularism:  
  • First issue is whether the CJI's public participation in a religious ceremony (Ganesh puja) with the PM as an invited guest is consistent with the oath of office and the principle of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. 
• Separation of powers: 
  • Second Issue is concerns about the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, given the public display of the CJI and PM participating together in a religious ceremony. 
  • It violates the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.  
  • The Supreme Court has previously held that there should be a clear separation between these branches of government to maintain checks and balances. 
• Constitutional principles:  
  • Third issue cites the S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) case, where the Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that the state should not "espouse or establish or practise any religion." 
• Impartiality of the judiciary 
  • Another issue is whether such public displays of religious affiliation by the CJI might affect the perception of impartiality, especially for non-Hindu litigants. 
• Precedent and propriety:  
  • For the first known instance in India's judicial history where a sitting CJI has invited a sitting PM to a public display of religiosity, raising questions about institutional norms and propriety. 

S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 

• Secularism as a Basic Feature:  
  • The Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. 
  • This means it is an integral part of the Constitution's identity and cannot be altered even through constitutional amendments. 
• State's Relation to Religion:  
  • The Court stated that "secularism" in the Constitution connotes that the state shall not espouse, establish, or practice any religion. 
  • The state must treat all religions equally and with respect. 
• Individual Rights:  
  • Everyone has an equal right to freedom of conscience and religion. 
  • This right is fundamental and is protected under the Constitution. 
• Separation of Religion and State Power:  
  • The Constitution does not recognize, permit, or allow mixing of religion and state power. 
  • Both religion and state power must be kept apart. 
• State's Role:  
  • The state has no religion of its own and must treat all religions equally. 
  • The state must remain neutral in matters of religion and cannot discriminate based on religious grounds. 
• Religious Freedom and Secularism:  
  • While individuals have the right to practice their religion, this must be balanced with the principle of secularism. 
  • Public officials, especially, must be mindful of maintaining this balance in their public roles. 
• Constitutional Mandate:  
  • Secularism is not just a passive attitude of religious tolerance but a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. 

Conclusion  

The public display of religious practices by top officials raises important questions about maintaining secularism in India. While personal faith is protected, the actions of the CJI and PM in this case may blur the lines between private beliefs and public responsibilities. This situation brings into question of how constitutional functionaries should balance their personal religious freedoms with their duty to uphold a secular state.