THE EXPLICIT MENTION of secularism in the Constitution’s Preamble underscores its significance in shaping India’s nationhood and constitutional identity post-independence. Unlike Western notions, Indian secularism seeks not to eliminate religion from the public sphere but ensures that no religion is discriminated against. The State bears the responsibility of upholding Article 15 of the Constitution, which ensures that neither citizens nor state authorities engage in religious discrimination.
On March 28, ahead of Eid-Ul-Fitr, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Meerut have warned members of the Muslim community of cancelling their passports and driving licenses and even registering of criminal cases, if they are found offering namaaz in public spaces. The alleged actions not only instill fear among citizens but also represent a blatant violation of constitutional values. While maintaining public order is essential, state authorities must not resort to discriminatory measures that undermine India’s secular fabric.
State overreach
Predetermined threats of cancellation of passports and driving licenses for minorities worshipping on roads raises serious concerns about the misuse of penal laws and the violation of fundamental rights, including freedom of religion (Article 25 of the Constitution) and the right to equality (Article 14) by the responsible state authorities. It is nothing but state overreach and would require strict scrutiny for ascertaining the modus operandi as to why and on what basis such claims of illegality are being made.
The principle that actions of the state or its instrumentalities should be fair, legitimate, and above board is a fundamental aspect of constitutional governance. It is derived from the constitutional mandate that the State must act in a manner that is just, fair, and reasonable. More broadly, it derives from the framework of the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. This was clearly iterated by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011).
The Meerut police’s actions raise critical legal and constitutional concerns. Cancelling passports or driving licenses as punitive measures for religious practices is unconstitutional. These documents are legal entitlements, not privileges that can be arbitrarily withdrawn. The State may have the authority to regulate public spaces when any mass or social activity takes place to maintain public order but in doing so, it cannot undertake biased actions which discriminate against any class or community.
Balancing religious freedom and public order
Undoubtedly, no religious activity should disrupt public life. Prayers on roads, large processions, or festivals must be conducted without inconveniencing others. However, the solution lies in regulation, not prohibition. Authorities should manage public spaces better rather than impose blanket bans. There must be uniformity in application of laws and perceptions of bias must be avoided by all means.
The Supreme Court, in various judgments, has emphasized that state actions must be proportionate and non-discriminatory.In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), it reaffirmed the importance of the right to freedom of conscience and religion as a fundamental right protected under the Constitution. The judgment also emphasised the duty of public authorities to respect and protect this right, and to act on reasonable and justifiable grounds when regulating the exercise of this right.
The State’s duty is to facilitate peaceful coexistence. Excessive measures, such as threatening document cancellations, exceed legal authority and undermine constitutional morality that safeguards the citizenry’s freedom to undergo religious processions.
Upholding constitutional scheme over intimidation
The framing of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly members was significantly informed by the pluralistic and diverse identity of the emerging Indian republic. Across the debates, this commitment to a secular vision, and an explicit disavowal of any potentially theocratic feature, emerges continuously. Whenever any State action is of a nature that discriminates and compartmentalises any of the social class in the nation it only hurts the Indian constitutional spirit, especially the secular aspect of it - which is, in fact, a significant part of the Preamble as well. The action of predeterminedly targeting a community, in the form of threatening to revoke passports or licenses, is unconstitutional and antithetical to India’s secular democracy.
