When law is the balance between rituals and rights

The recent dramatic ban by the Tamil Nadu government of the Dharmapuram Adheenam pattina pravesam and its subsequent volte face has raised numerous questions in the minds of people.
One of them being whether ritualistic practices need any insulation from the long arm of the law even if they are anachronistic and/or challenge human rights and dignity? Pattina pravesam observed by the Dharmapuram Adheenam requires the seer to be carried on a palanquin on the shoulders of devotees.The centuries-old ritual is a way of felicitating the seer when he enters a city.

The ban that was ordered by the revenue divisional officer (RDO) of Mayiladuthurai last month referred to Article 23(1) of the Constitution that prohibits traffic in human beings and other similar forms of forced labour. The order categorically stated that the seer was only banned from being carried physically by people in a palanquin and there was no objection to the seer touring places in the name of pattina pravesam.
The said ban which was revoked on May 8 was seen as a reformist agenda by a section of society and viewed with suspicion by others who saw it as an intrusion into their religious beliefs and practices apart from being an attack on their religious freedom.
The Supreme Court has consistently evolved ‘Doctrine of Essential Religious Practice’ as a standard test for adjudicating constitutionally permissible religious practices stretching from the famous Shirur Mutt case (1954) to the Ajmer Dargah case (1961), then the Ananda Margis case (2004) and more recently the Sabarimala case (2018).
What comes to mind is a statement by B R Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly during one of the debates on codification of Hindu law. He said: “The religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life from birth to death; there is nothing extra, there is nothing extraordinary in saying that we ought to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such a manner that we shall not extend it beyond beliefs and such rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially religious.”
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship that are integral parts of religion. But what exactly constitutes an essential part of religion and its practices has to be decided by courts only with reference to that particular religion and its practices. In this context, pattina pravesam on a palanquin has today become redundant because of the use of motor transport which was not in vogue then.
A 2017 report by the Pew Research Centre in the US says government restrictions on religion by way of laws, policies and state actions restricting religious beliefs and practices have increased markedly around the world in the past decade. Human rights can never be disconnected from religion. Human rights and faith have to co-exist and religious philosophies and practices cannot ever undermine human dignity, human equality and justice.
The Rabat Plan of Action (2012) promoted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHR) through UN-approved ‘Faith for Rights’ and the subsequent Beirut Declaration in 2017 requires nations to ensure that interpretation of religion or belief should add to the level of protection of human dignity that human-made laws provide for. It asserts that religions flourish only in environments where human rights, based on the equal worth of individuals are protected. The 18 commitments under it talk largely about human rights that need to be entwined with deep-rooted ethical and spiritual foundation provided by religions and beliefs.
Any ritualistic practice that is merely for symbolism and is additionally in conflict with human rights and dignity needs to be given up. Even assuming for a moment that the seer shall be carried on the palanquin only by willing devotees; practically speaking, the responsibility most often falls on the employees (sippanthis). This is obvious from giving ‘pallakku manyam’ or a grant to lift the palanquin to the bearers.
When a dispute arose at the Ranganathar Temple, Srirangam, among the descendant-beneficiaries of Sree Veda Vyasa Battar Swamigal family about who is entitled to be carried on the palanquin (Brahmaratham) on the temple premises, the trustees had passed resolution in 2010 giving up the practice of carrying person(s) in palanquin. The Tamil Nadu Association of Temple Employees also passed a resolution then stating it would not take part in any practice of carrying person(s) in a palanquin on temple premises.
Though certain practices are followed for many years such that they form part of religious rights recognised under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, a reasonable restriction can be imposed by the state if warranted.
Many religious institutions have in their own way adapted their routines to the times. They must come forth willingly to display similar spirit and determination to embrace a new approach by modifying age-old practices that have lost relevance and sense of purpose. By doing so, the seers would be practising the highest form of spiritualism by treating fellow human beings as equals. A modern democratic welfare state has all the right to prohibit regressive practices and to regulate any non-essential religious activities.
(The writer is an advocate in Madras high court)