Nagarathna

Constitutional courts should be extremely reluctant to alter religious practices, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench cautioned. Only the will of the people, expressed through elected representatives in Parliament and assemblies, can bring about reforms in religious customs. The court emphasized that it's impossible to scrutinize every religious practice.

While hearing allegations of custodial torture, the bench clarified that it was not willing to accept a video conference appearance despite the state counsel’s offer to do so

The Supreme Court questioned extending reservation benefits to affluent individuals within backward classes, emphasizing social mobility through empowerment. Justices noted that children of well-placed government employees should ideally exit the reservation system.

SC Asks Police To Produce Aditya Anand, Rupesh Roy After Plea Claims Custodial Torture

A rationalist group presented a novel argument in the Supreme Court. They stated Article 25 of the Constitution permits individuals to change their religious affiliation throughout the day. This interpretation sparked debate among the judges. The court considered the implications of such freedom on religious practices and traditions. The discussion highlighted the balance between individual conscience and established religious customs.

The Centre argued before the Supreme Court that Article 25(1) on religious freedom doesn't mandate gender equality, as Articles 15 and 16 already prohibit sex discrimination. It urged courts to avoid interfering in religious practices, stating only the legislature can enact social reforms through broad discussions. The bench reserved its verdict.

The latest judgment faulted two earlier rulings, holding them inconsistent with the landmark February 1, 2021 verdict by a three-judge bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, which ruled that UAPA’s stringent bail conditions cannot be “used as the sole metric for denial of bail”

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court underscored the primacy of bail, regardless of UAPA constraints, asserting that personal freedom must not be persistently restricted. By referencing the KA Najeeb case, the justices highlighted that extended detention without trial contravenes constitutional principles, challenging previous judgments that had sidestepped this fundamental right.