Editorial 2: ​Basic structure

Context

No public event can impose restrictions based on religion.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of secularism as part of India’s constitutional foundation comes at a critical moment. A misguided petition over the Mysuru Dasara festival tried to inject communal divisions into a cultural celebration. By dismissing it, the Court reminded citizens that pluralism, equality, and shared heritage are essential to India’s identity, transcending narrow interpretations of religion.

Supreme Court’s Reaffirmation of Secularism

• The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that secularism is a fundamental principle and part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• This restatement became necessary due to a misguided petition attempting to communalise a national cultural celebration.
• The Court emphasised that secularism and equality are clearly enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Case of Mysuru Dasara Festival

• The Karnataka government invited Booker Prize-winning writer Banu Mushtaq, a Muslim, to inaugurate the Mysuru Dasara festival at the Chamundeshwari Temple.
• The petition claimed this act violated Articles 25 and 26 related to religious freedom.
• The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition, clarifying that Dasara is a State event, not a private religious ritual.
• The Court stressed that the State cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when conducting public events.

Religion and Constitutional Rights

• The right to practise religion does not grant the right to exclude others from participating in its traditions.
• Restricting participation in public gatherings based on religion is indefensible in a pluralistic society.
• Though some places of worship still limit entry, such practices remain subject to legal and ethical debate.

Shared Cultural Heritage and Challenges

• For centuries, festivals and pilgrimages have united India, transcending social and religious barriers.
• Acknowledging this shared cultural heritage has been common to all political parties, despite their disagreements.
• However, political opportunists today attempt to create communal rifts, undermining India’s tradition of coexistence and harmony.
• The Supreme Court’s stand makes it clear that such divisive forces must be held accountable.

Conclusion

India’s strength lies in its unity amid diversity, where festivals and traditions bind communities together. Attempts to communalise public events undermine this shared heritage and threaten national harmony. The Supreme Court’s stance highlights that secularism and coexistence are not optional values but constitutional guarantees. Holding divisive forces accountable is vital to preserving India’s inclusive spirit and democratic fabric.