India's Chief Justice Tells Authorities To Rein In Cow Protection Vigilantes

According to Reuters, India's Supreme Court last week ordered both the federal and state governments to appoint police officers to stop cow protection groups from taking the law into their own hands. Chief Justice Dipak Misra told governments to take this step after a hearing on three public interest lawsuits. There has been a wave of attacks by Hindu activists on Muslims accused of killing cows or eating beef. Police have processed over three dozen cases in the past two years. Several Indian states impose criminal punishment for slaughtering cows, which are sacred to Hindus.

India's Supreme Court Invalidates Triple Talaq Divorces For Muslims

India's Supreme Court today, by a vote of 3-2, invalidated the Sunni Muslim practice of divorce by triple talaq.  In Bano v. Union of India, (India S.Ct., Aug. 22, 2017), in 3 opinions spanning 395 pages, three justices agreed (in 2 separate opinions) that triple talaq is invalid.  Two other justices concluded that the practice is not unconstitutional, but urged the government to legislate on the matter within 6 months and would have enjoined use of the divorce procedure during that period.

Justice Nariman's opinion, joined by Justice Lalit concluded:

it is clear that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 [Right to Equality] of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act [Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act], insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq ... must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Justice Joseph concluded that "triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat."  He continued:

The whole purpose of the 1937 Act was to declare Shariat as the rule of decision and to discontinue anti-Shariat practices with respect to subjects enumerated in Section 2 which include talaq. Therefore, in any case, after the introduction of the 1937 Act, no practice against the tenets of Quran is permissible.... What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.

Chief Justice Khehar, Joined by Justice Nazeer, concluded that triple talaq is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution that protects freedom of religion, saying in part:

It is not for a court to determine whether religious practices were prudent or progressive or regressive. Religion and ‘personal law’, must be perceived, as it is accepted, by the followers of the faith. And not, how another would like it to be (-including self-proclaimed rationalists, of the same faith). Article 25 obliges all Constitutional Courts to protect ‘personal laws’ and not to find fault therewith. Interference in matters of ‘personal law’ is clearly beyond judicial examination....

However, he qualified this by calling on the government to modify the situation by legislation, saying:

[we] are satisfied, that this is a case which presents a situation where this Court should exercise its discretion to issue appropriate directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. We therefore hereby direct, the Union of India to consider appropriate legislation, particularly with reference to ‘talaq-e-biddat’. We hope and expect, that the contemplated legislation will also take into consideration advances in Muslim ‘personal law’ – ‘Shariat’, as have been corrected by legislation the world over, even by theocratic Islamic States....

Till such time as legislation in the matter is considered, we are satisfied in injuncting Muslim husbands, from pronouncing ‘talaq-e-biddat' as a means for severing their matrimonial relationship. The instant injunction, shall in the first instance, be operative for a period of six months.

The Quint reports on the decision.

India's Supreme Court To Hear Constitutional Challenge To Personal Status Laws

NewsClick yesterday carried a lengthy article surveying the background and importance of the Shayara Bano case which will be heard by a 5-judge panel of India's Supreme Court next month.  At issue is whether laws involving personal status which are governed in India by separate legal codes for different religious groups are subject to the fundamental rights protections of India's Constitution.  In this case, the issue is whether Muslim divorce through "Triple Talaq", a practice invoked pursuant to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (1937), violates women's rights to equality, life and dignity. The article summarizes in part:

In the triple talaq case the Supreme Court is confronted with this question yet again and it remains to be seen if they will decide the question or dodge it by saying that Islam itself does not recognize triple talaq and hence, there is no need to decide the larger issue of whether personal laws are amenable to constitutional checks and challenges. What is at stake is not just Muslim Personal Law but all laws governing marriage and divorce, including Hindu Law. Will the ruling party that is moving towards a Hindutva State, allow such a challenge is the question. For now the Union of India has committed itself to the challenge but may remain content with the striking down on the ground that it is un-Islamic as some groups have argued. There is a lot riding on this case, not just talaq. The issues are fundamental to constitutional gender justice for all women.

India Supreme Court Gives Broad Reading To Law Banning Religious Appeals To Voters

In Singh v. Commachen, (Sup. Ct. India, Jan. 2, 2016), the Supreme Court of India in a 4-3 decision yesterday interpreted broadly Sec. 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act which prohibits appealing to voters on the basis of religion, race, caste, community or language.  Indian Express reports on the decision and its impact:

By a 4-3 majority ruling, a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that an election will be annulled not only if votes are sought in the name of the religion of the candidate but also when such an appeal hinges on religion of voters or candidate’s election agents or by anybody else with the consent of the candidate.

The third class will include religious and spiritual leaders, often engaged by candidates to mobilise their followers. The majority view interpreted Section 123(3) ... to mean that this provision was laid down with an intent “to clearly proscribe appeals based on sectarian, linguistic or caste considerations ... and send out the message that regardless of these distinctions, voters were free to choose the candidate best suited to represent them.”....

Meanwhile ... [three justices] dissented ..., holding that the expression “his” used [in the statute] in conjunction with religion, race, caste, community or language is in reference to the candidate, in whose favour the appeal to cast a vote is made, or that of a rival candidate when an appeal is made to refrain from voting for another.

“To hold that a person who seeks to contest an election is prohibited from speaking of the legitimate concerns of citizens that the injustices faced by them on the basis of traits having an origin in religion, race, caste, community or language would be remedied is to reduce democracy to an abstraction,” the minority judgment said.

Illinois Court Recognizes Muslim Divorce In India Through Khula

Times of India reported yesterday on a June 28 opinion handed down by a Cook County, Illinois circuit court judge recognizing that a Muslim woman's first marriage had been validly dissolved in India in 2007 through the little-known wife-initiated Sharia law procedure of khula.  The issue arose when the woman's second husband raised as a defense in a divorce proceeding the argument that their marriage was never valid because the wife was never divorced from her first husband.

India's Supreme Court May Consider Constitutionality of Muslim Divorce Practices

India's Supreme Court today said it will examine whether it has jurisdiction to invalidate Muslim personal laws if they interfere with constitutional rights.  According to NDTV, the move comes in a suit challenging triple talaq, the practice that allows a Muslim husband to divorce his wife by pronouncing three times the phrase "I divorce you." (Background.) One of the cases raising the question was brought by a woman whose husband divorced her through triple talaq delivered by mail. The court will hear arguments on the issue on Sept. 6.

Indian Court Sentences 24 For Roles In 2002 Gujarat Religious Riots

On Friday, a court in India imposed sentences on the 24 defendants who were convicted earlier this month in the 2002 killings of 69 Muslims during religious riots in Gujarat state. AFP reports that eleven of the Hindu defendants were sentenced to life in prison for their part in the massacre at the Gulbarg Society housing complex.  The court sentenced twelve others to seven years in jail, and the remaining defendant to ten years for rioting and arson.

Indian Court Convicts 24 In Killing of Muslims In 2002 Gujarat Riots

Al Jazeera reports that a court in India yesterday convicted 24 people in the 2002 killings of 69 Muslims during religious riots in Gujarat state.  36 others were acquitted for lack of evidence.  The killings took place when a Hindu mob stormed a cluster of buildings in Ajmedabad where Muslims were hiding.  The mob burned and hacked the victims to death.

Indian Court Says Muslim Women Taking Pre-Med Test May Wear Hijabs

In the Indian state of Kerala yesterday, a High Court judge issued an order allowing Muslim women to wear a hijab while taking the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT-2016). However they must present themselves a half hour early for frisking.  NDTV reports that the order came during a hearing on a challenge to the dress code for the test prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education.  The court said that the prescribed dress code amounts to a restriction on religious liberty.

India Effectively Denies Visas To USCIRF Delegation

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said in a press release yesterday that the government of India has effectively denied visas to a USCIRF delegation that was to visit India to assess religious freedom conditions in that country. India failed to issue requested visas in time for the delegation's scheduled departure today.

India's Supreme Court Balances Religious Rights Against Social Reform

In Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (India Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), the Supreme Court of India came down with a complicated holding on the constitutionality of an administrative order ("GO") adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu that attempts to eliminate the hereditary priesthood in Hindu temples.  It provides instead that "any person who is a Hindu and  possessing the requisite qualification and training" is eligible for appointment.  This was challenged by an association representing Hindu priests as well as by individual priests as infringing Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.  India's First Post describes the Supreme Court's holding:

[T]he crucial purpose of the GO was to eliminate the monopoly of Brahmins as priests in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The idea was to open these positions to all suitable candidates from all castes who had obtained the appropriate training in the centres set up by the government.

The petitioners on the other hand contended that this GO went against the fundamental tenets of the Hindu religion, represented here by the agama shastras which prescribed how the rituals were to be carried out and who could be appointed as priests to Hindu temples. It was argued that following the agama shastras were “essential religious practices” protected under Article 26 of the Constitution which if deviated from on the basis of a GO, would amount to an invasion of the right of a denomination to carry out its religious practices.

[The Supreme Court] ... upheld the [GO] but with a rider that appointments made under it can be challenged on a case-by-case basis, as being contrary to the agama sastras or customs. But crucially, the agama sastras or customs may themselves be subject to scrutiny by the court to see if they are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The court has thus tried to strike a balance between two very contradictory impulses in our polity: The right to practice one’s religion and the social reform of religious practices.

Facebook Is Immune From Suit For Removing Sikh Group's Page In India

In Sikhs For Justice ("SFJ"), Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., (ND CA, Nov. 13, 2015), a California federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by a Sikh human rights group that objected to Facebook's blocking of access in India to the group's Facebook page.  The suit alleges that Facebook discriminated in violation of the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it collaborated with the government of India in retaliating against SFJ for its online campaign complaining about the treatment of Sikhs and promoting an independent Sikh state. (See prior posting.) The court held that Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Facebook from liability.  That section immunizes interactive computer services from liability as a publisher of content posted by third parties.  The court agreed with Facebook that the lawsuit "is entirely based on Defendant’s blocking of the SFJ Page in India, which is publisher conduct immunized by the CDA." Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

India's Supreme Court Orders Crematorium Moved To Save Taj Mahal From Pollution Damage

In India yesterday, the country's Supreme Court ordered an over 200-year old crematorium near the Taj Mahal to either close down or be replaced by an electric crematorium.  According to the Times of India, smoke from the wooden funeral pyres burning 500 feet away from the Taj Mahal are causing deterioration of the Taj Mahal's marble dome and minarets. The white marble dome is now yellow with pollution from the 25 cremations every day.  Pro-Hindu political parties and religious groups oppose moving the crematorium.

As Indian Prime Minister Visits Britain, Religious Minorities' Rights Are Raised

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, head of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party) began an important 3-day formal visit to Britain yesterday. However his visit has been dogged by concerns on at least two fronts regarding the rights of religious minorities in India. According to The Guardian:

In the last few months, mobs of fanatics, some linked to his party, the BJP, have lynched Muslims for eating, carrying or possessing beef, or on mere suspicion of having done so.... Most of all, however, critics say it was Modi himself who spawned the narrative of beef as a critical issue during elections last year by warning of a “pink revolution” (a widespread slaughter of cows) if his party didn’t win.

Meanwhile, Sikhs have a different concern, and have enlisted Britain's Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in their cause. According to an NSO Press Release"

The office for the leader of the Labour Party has said Jeremy Corbyn will be taking up the issue of the 1984 Sikh genocide with the Indian premier during his visit to Britain this week.... [P]rior to Mr Modi’s landslide victory, he and his party had placed the blame for the killings of Sikhs on the then Congress government. Furthermore, following appointment to office Mr Modi’s Home Minister described the killings as “genocide”.... [However, according to a Sikh leader in the UK] ... "Mr Modi has done nothing to bring identified Congress leaders who urged gangs of hooligans, to kill, murder and burn Sikh men, women and children, to justice. They now freely roam the streets gloating of their achievements to the bewilderment of relatives of those murdered, as well as the wider Sikh community."

Indian Judge Concerned Over Water Pollution From Immersing of Idols

According to NDTV, in India a Justice on the Madras High Court is concerned that the traditional religious practice of immersing idols in bodies of water is having detrimental environmental effects.  At a bail hearing yesterday growing out of a clash at last month's Vinayaka Chaturthi idol immersion festival, Justice S Vaidyanathan commented:

On account of the immersion, materials like clay, bamboo, grass, wood, metals, jute, colours, painted cloth, flowers, incense sticks, dhoop, camphor and ash are released into water bodies..... It is not rational, prudent and judicious to pollute an already scarce commodity. This illiterate attitude towards water should be put to an end.

He suggested that artificial ponds might be built just for use during the festival season.

Catholic Orphanages In India End Adoption Services In Protest Over New Government Policies

Catholic Review and CNS reported this week that in India, the Missionaries of Charity-- a religious order that operates orphanages across the country-- will no longer offer children for adoption because of its disagreement with new government adoption guidelines.  The organization, founded by Mother Teresa, is asking the government to remove recognition of the 18 of its orphanages that have operated as adoption centers.  Traditionally they have allowed adoption only by married couples.  At issue are guidelines from the federal Ministry of Women and Child Development adopted in July that now require adoption centers to allow adoption by single individuals, apparently including unmarried adults in same-sex relationships, couples living together, and individuals who are divorced or separated. (Under the guidelines, single men  can only adopt boys.)  The Catholic order also objects that potential adoptive parents will be allowed to review the files of up to six children rather than taking the best match as determined by orphanage officials. The new government guidelines are designed to increase the number of adoptions.

India's Supreme Court Suspends and Grants Review of State Court Decision Outlawing Santhara

BBC reports that yesterday India's Supreme Court agreed to review a decision of the Rajasthan High Court that held Santhara, a traditional Jain practice of starving oneself to death to attain salvation, is suicide under India's Penal Code. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court suspended the Rajasthan court's judgment while the appeal is in process.

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action By Sikh Victims of 1984 Riots In India

In Sikhs for Justice, Inc. v. Gandhi, (2d Cir., Aug. 25, 2015), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a putative class action on behalf of victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India brought against Sonia Gandhi, president of India's ruling political party.  Claims under the Alien Tort Statute were dismissed because all relevant conduct took place outside the United States. Torture Victim Protection Act claims were dismissed on standing grounds.  The court added:

Moreover, plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that defendant is liable for the anti-Sikh riots. At best, the amended complaint alleges that certain attacks were carried out on defendant’s “orders,” and that defendant was present at one of several meetings at which the riots were planned.

In India, Sikh Group Plans Suit Against Educational Board Over Dress Code For Test

In India, a Sikh organization (the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) is planning to file suit against the Central Board of Secondary Education challenging the strict dress code it imposed on those taking the All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test.  As reported yesterday by Sikh24, the dress code was drawn up after India's Supreme Court ordered the test re-administered because some students allegedly used electronic devices to cheat on the original exam. In some test centers, Sikh students were required to remove certain of the five sacred symbols ( Panj Kakaars ) that Sikhs are required to wear. Apparently authorities were concerned that items such as the krirpan  or the kara could conceal electronic devices.

In India, Rapper, Singer and YouTube Sued For Insulting Zoroastrianism

According to yesterday's Los Angeles Times, in India a Parsi civic organization has filed a public interest lawsuit against rapper Snoop Dogg, Iranian pop singer Amitis Moghaddam, YouTube and other defendants for insulting their Zoroastrian religion.  The suit, filed in a court in the city of Kolkata, seeks to have a musical video featuring the celebrities banned because of its use of a giant gold Faravahar, the winged disc that is a respected symbol of Zoroastrianism.  The three-and-a-half minute video for the song King shows Snoop Dog on a throne under the Farvahar smoking weed, and shows Moghaddam dressed as a Persian queen lying under the Farvahar being fanned by  two scantily clothed men.