BEYOND THE WALL: PRINCIPLED DISTANCE, CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY, AND THE JURISPRUDENCE OF INDIAN SECULARISM

Abstract

Indian secularism is often described as an imperfect copy of a Western ideal. This article argues the opposite: its departures from strict separation are the point. Through a doctrinal reading of the Constituent Assembly Debates, Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution, and leading Supreme Court decisions, the article traces a relational model of secularism organized around principled distance. That model asks the state to guard against two kinds of power at once - majoritarian domination between religious communities and subordination within them. The constitutional architecture is therefore neither simply interventionist nor hands-off. It is context-sensitive, pluralist, and reformist. The article then examines the essential religious practices doctrine from Shirur Mutt through Durgah Committee, Shayara Bano, and the Sabarimala litigation. The doctrine's central weakness is institutional: it turns civil judges into arbiters of theological authenticity and can displace the more candid question of whether a practice causes discrimination, humiliation, or civil disability. A rights-based approach grounded in constitutional morality and anti-subordination better fits the Constitution's transformative commitments, provided that it remains alert to majoritarian interference with minority autonomy. The pending nine-judge reference in Kantaru Rajeevaru makes that choice immediate rather than theoretical.