Today, On 26th September, The High Court directed that a petition, urging not to equate religion with “dharma,” be treated as a representation by the Union Ministries of Culture and Education. The petition emphasizes the distinction between the two concepts and calls for clarity in their usage. The court’s directive shifts the matter to the government for consideration.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday urged the Centre to promptly address a representation requesting the use of the correct meaning of the term “religion” and to avoid equating it with “dharma” in official documents.
The petition further called for the inclusion of a chapter on “dharma” and “religion” in primary and secondary school curricular to help educate the public and curb religion-based hatred and hate speech.
Read Also: Kerala HC Allows ‘Religion Change in School Certificates’ After conversion
However, the court noted that it does not serve as a theological or philosophical authority, and it does not have the jurisdiction to decide school curriculums or mandate the addition of chapters to the syllabus.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Designate Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,
“Courts do not act as theological or philosophical authorities. There seems to be a misunderstanding here you are mistaking us for experts on international banking transactions, philosophers, or theological experts. We have no role in this… I don’t understand why these petitions are coming to this court. We have nothing to do with it.”
The Delhi High Court directed that the petition be treated as a representation to the Union ministries of Culture and Education, urging them to decide on the matter as per the law, as quickly as possible.
Justice Manmohan further remarked,
“The ministry will decide this. We are not involved in such matters. You are asking for a chapter in the school curriculum. We don’t decide school curricular. If we start inserting chapters, that will be the end of the matter.”
While issuing the order, the court noted that the petitioner was essentially asking it to engage in a semantic exercise and assume the role of a theological and philosophical authority.
The court added,
“The language, its usage, and meaning are products of organic societal evolution and cannot be dictated by courts unless it is obscene or contrary to the spirit and letter of the law,”
In his petition, the petitioner argued that,
“Dharma is distinct from religion, describing it as non-divisive, non-exclusive, and transcending the narrow boundaries of religion.”
The plea stated,
“Religion is a tradition, not dharma. Religion is a cult or spiritual lineage known as ‘sampradaya’ (community). Therefore, religion equates to community,”
Further requesting it stated,
“Dharma should not be used as a synonym for religion in official documents like birth certificates, Aadhaar cards, school certificates, ration cards, driving licenses, domicile certificates, death certificates, and bank accounts.”
Read Also: “As Judges of The Top Court, We Respect All Religions”: Supreme Court Justices
The petition added,
“In daily life, we often say a person follows Vaishnav dharma or Jain dharma, or that someone follows Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity. This is incorrect. Instead, we should say they follow Vaishnav sampradaya, Shiv sampradaya, Buddha sampradaya, or the Islamic or Christian sampradaya.”
It further highlighted that religion has historically been one of the most potent divisive forces,” whereas “dharma” is different because it “unites.”
The plea emphasized that religion involves following someone’s path, while dharma is “a work of wisdom.”