"Impact of religious value on judicial decision making'

A laundry list approach may function quite well at labeling those beliefs or values which resemble
the one or more religious traditions from which the list was constructed, but inherent in this
approach are both a substantial risk of bia

In another instance, the former Chief justice of India, SA Bobde, while granting bail to an accused on
Janmashtami, jokingly remarked, “You want bail or jail? Today Lord Krishna was born in jail. Do you
want to leave jail?”

For instance, Justice S.R. Sen, a Judge at the Meghalaya High court, observed in one of his
judgements in 2018 that the National Register of Citizens’ process was defective because it left out
“original Indians”. He further added that the Hindus who came to India during the partition had not
been rehabilitated and were still considered foreigners. He also made some remarks about forced
conversions by Muslims, and of Hindus being an innocent community.

Earlier in 1996, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court culled out a distinction between Hindutva
and Hinduism, thereby, holding that Hindutva was not necessarily Hinduism or religious Hindu
fundamentalism and was rather a way of life.

In another instance, K.T. Sankaran of the Kerala High Court ordered an investigation into the project
purportedly called the Romeo Jihad, wherein Muslims were converting non-Muslim girls to Islam. In
another 2017 matter pertaining to the murder of a Muslim man, Justice Mridula Bhatkar of the
Bombay High court granted bail to the three accused, who were also members of the Hindu Rashtra
Sena, stating that they were provoked in the name of religion and the fact that the deceased was a
Muslim was to be considered in favour of the accused

In June 2020, the Supreme Court allowed Lord Jagannath Yatra of Puri to be held with certain
restrictions. The Court expressed its inability to micromanage the Yatra and left everything to the
wisdom of the state and temple authorities. Similarly, the Supreme Court also gave a green signal to
the Jain community to hold prayers at three temples in Mumbai for two days during the Paryushan
festival. This order had reversed a previous order banning the Yatra on the grounds that Lord
Jagannath would not forgive the Court if it did not intervene to safeguard public health during the
pandemic.
1. Religion is a complex issue in India, and it has often intersected with the
Indian judiciary in various ways. India is a secular country, and the constitution
guarantees religious freedom and equality before the law. However, there
have been instances where religious beliefs and practices have come into
conflict with laws and constitutional principles.
2. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in addressing these conflicts and
upholding the constitutional principles of secularism and religious freedom.
For example, in the landmark case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, the
Supreme Court of India held that the Indian Constitution guarantees the right
to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion and that this right is subject
to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health.
3. In recent years, the Indian judiciary has also dealt with issues such as the Babri
Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, which involved a dispute over the
ownership of a religious site claimed by both Hindus and Muslims, and the
issue of instant triple talaq, where the Supreme Court declared the practice of
instant triple talaq (a form of divorce practiced by some Muslims) as
unconstitutional.
4. In conclusion, the Indian judiciary has an important role in balancing the
constitutional principles of religious freedom and secularism with the rights of
individuals and the interests of society as a whole. The judiciary has generally
been successful in resolving conflicts arising from religious beliefs and
practices and in upholding the constitutional rights of all citizens.