Recently, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the resumption of “annadhanam” (offering free food) and “angapradakshanam” (circumambulation) at the final resting place of Nerur Sathguru Sadasiva Brahmendral on the eve of his Jeeva Samathi day. 

• The practice earlier ceased, now is reinstated by citing religious freedom under Article 25(1) of the Constitution that guarantees the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. 

Background of the Angapradakshanam Practice

The term ‘Angapradakshinam’ comes from two Sanskrit words ‘Anga’ meaning body, and ‘Pradakshinam’ meaning circumambulation.

• Traditional Belief: The practice of doing ‘angapradakshanam’ by rolling on the plantain leaves left behind by devotees after eating food from them, in the belief that it would offer spiritual benefit and had been in practice for over 100 years. 
• Halt in 2015: The practice was halted by a Division Bench order in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition in 2015 due to concerns over human dignity.
• Bring Back: Nine years later, in 2024, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reinstated the practice by invoking Article 25(1). 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Crucial Insights on the Madurai Bench Judgment

The Madurai Bench observed that a man had every right to perform Angapradakshinam, a ritual where one rolls over the plantain leaves left behind by other devotees after eating. 

• Reference from Mahabharata: The judge cited the Mahabharata to support his decision, arguing that spiritual benefits are conferred by rolling on leftover food. 
• Comparison to Supreme Court Order: Justice G.R. Swaminathan said that in the Karnataka case that was banned by the Supreme Court, involved only Brahmins’ leftovers, while at Nerur, all devotees participated.
  • In the Karnataka Case a similar practice was performed at the Kukke Subramanya temple in Dakshina Kannada district. The Supreme Court stayed the practice in December 2014 and directed the respondents therein not to allow anyone to roll on leftover plantain leaves.
• For Natural Justice: Overruling of the earlier judgement is on the ground that the necessary parties in the PIL petition were neither included as parties nor heard and it breach the principles of natural justice.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: Justice G.R. Swaminathan linked the belief of the devotees, who claim to derive spiritual benefit from such practice, to the right to privacy, a fundamental right under the Constitution. 
  • The customary practice is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
• Spiritual Orientation: The judge argued that if the right to privacy includes “gender and sexual orientation”, it also includes “spiritual orientation”. 
• Communal Amity and Social Integration: In the present case, all devotees participated irrespective of their community and the custom points to communal amity and social integration. 

Criticisms Arising against the Judgment

The recent judgement by Madurai Bench is criticised by experts on the following grounds:

• Conflict with Dignity and Violation to Fundamental Rights: The order noted that all devotees irrespective of their castes indulged in the practice of rolling on the leftover plantain leaves. 
  • It concluded that such religious and customary practices affect human dignity and violate the rights of equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
• Against the Constitutional Spirit: The recent judgement focused on the devotee’s rights to continue with the ritual under the pretext of protection of their fundamental rights.
  • It failed to examine the duty of every citizen to develop a scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution.
• Overlooked the People’s Movement: The judge overlooked the people’s movement that culminated in the judicial decisions that recognised sexual orientation, which cannot be equated with a spiritual orientation, especially as angapradakshanam on the plantain leaves left behind by devotees is customary and religious rather than spiritual. 
• Erroneous Understanding of the Facts: The appeal in the Supreme Court was by the State of Karnataka which was stayed as the rituals were against public order, morality, and health, which are the restrictions on the right to worship under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
• Followed Cultural Relativism: The judgement is the relativist argument and has moved away from the norms in international instruments.
  • Even the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mention human dignity. 
• Practice Rooted in Superstition: The judge failed to recognise that traditional and religious practices are steeped in superstitious beliefs and are the refuge of the ignorant and fearful, who guard against the challenge to their privileges.

Other Contemporary Incidents of Religion vs Human Dignity

The issue of human dignity vs religious practice is not new in India. Few earlier instances are as follows:

• Triple Talaq Case: It violated the Fundamental Right to Equality and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • In Shayara Bano Judgement, 2017, the Supreme Court declared triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat as unconstitutional.
• Sabarimala Case: It violated the gender equality and the Right to Freedom of Religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
  • In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple.
• Female Genital Mutilation: The Supreme Court expressed concern about Female Genital Mutilation prevalent in the Bohra Muslim community. 
  • It compromises and violates a woman’s bodily integrity and privacy in the name of religious beliefs.
• Polygamy and Nikah Halala: It also violates the right to equality.
  • The case of Sameena Begum vs Union of India primarily questions the constitutionality of the practices of nikah halala and polygamy, which are constituents of the Muslim personal law.
• The Uniform Civil Code: It is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply to all citizens equally regardless of their religion. 
  • Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India, 1995 highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India to address the inequality and discrimination faced by women in matters like marriage and divorce across different religious communities.
  • It is mentioned in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution (a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy). 
    • Supported by: On the ground to promote national integration and gender justice.
    • Opposed by: As a threat to religious freedom and diversity.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Ethical Issues with Such Religious Customs and Practices

The issue of human dignity vs religious practice poses various ethical dilemmas, few are mentioned below:

• Cultural Relativism and Universalism: Such practices exemplifies the conflict between respecting cultural practices and upholding universal human rights standards.
  • The universalists argue for adoption of human rights standards, whereas the cultural relativists rely on customary laws and practices and religious beliefs. 
• Health and Hygiene Concerns: These practices such as rolling on leftover food can pose significant hygiene and health risks.
• Consent and Voluntariness: Even if voluntary, there may be social pressures that undermine genuine consent.
• Public Morality: Such religious and customary practices may degrade the public morality. 
  • Moral values in religious contexts are often derived from the teachings and commands of a higher power. Believers follow these moral guidelines.
  • However, in ethical systems, particularly in secular ethics, may draw from a variety of sources, including human reason, empathy, societal values, and considerations of well-being and fairness.
• Against Constitutional Values and Spirit:
  • Against Dignity and Equality: Such religious and customary practices may degrade human dignity and violate the rights of equality.
  • Against the Spirit of Growth: Promoting such superstitious practices is against the development of scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry among peoples.

Way Forward

Following actions are suggested to counter the issue of derogating human dignity in customary and religious practices:

• Duty by the State to make Changes: It is the duty of the State to change religious and customary practices, such as rolling over leftovers, that are unhealthy, harmful, and strike at human dignity. 
• Educate and Spread Awareness among the Believers: While an outright rejection of such practices may open up a Pandora’s Box, the State could educate the believers through reason and rational discussions and pave for a community that is humane and prone to the spirit of inquiry.
• Maintain a Judicial Harmony: There is a significant divergence in judicial opinions regarding the applicability of Fundamental Rights to Personal Laws in India that requires maintaining a harmony through judicial consistency.
  • While some judgments assert that personal laws are outside Article 13 and immune to challenges based on Fundamental Rights violations, others advocate for such personal laws to be tested against Fundamental Rights. 
• Preference must be on Constitutional Morality: Constitutional morality provides a framework for understanding governance principles. It sets norms that institutions must follow to ensure their proper functioning.
  • The principle of constitutional morality has been used multiple times by the Supreme Court to effect social change such as decriminalising homosexuality.
• Elimination of Discriminatory and Harmful Processes: Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures.
  • The Law Commission should aim to eliminate all those practices that do not meet the constitutional standards and are derogatory to human values.
  • Cultural practices must align with substantive equality and gender justice goals.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes