Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, emphasized that education and literacy are the keys to fostering rational thinking. He stated “The more educated you become, the presumption is that more rational you become. How can a court directing for developing scientific temper help?”
NEW DELHI: On Friday (2nd Aug) : The Supreme Court declined to address a petition seeking judicial directives for central and state Governments to combat superstition, sorcery, and similar practices.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Emphasizes Consequences of Celebratory Firing at Weddings
While acknowledging the gravity of the issue, the Court deemed it “not judicially manageable,” stating that courts cannot address all societal problems.
Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, emphasized that education and literacy are the keys to fostering rational thinking.
He questioned the efficacy of court orders in promoting scientific temper, stating,
“The more educated you become, the presumption is that more rational you become. How can a court directing for developing scientific temper help?”
The bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, highlighted that civil society and democratic institutions bear the responsibility of addressing such issues. It stressed that courts have limitations and cannot tackle every serious problem.
“Writs can’t be the answer to all societal evils. Civil society and the democratic arms of the government must take action. Simply approaching the courts doesn’t make one a social reformer. There are other avenues for instigating change,”
the Court noted.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Stays Meghalaya High Court Order on Custodial Death Compensation
The bench also underscored the role of the legislature, suggesting that Parliament should handle issues related to social problems.
“This is a matter for Parliament to decide,” the bench stated. If a law is required, it is for Parliament to draft and enact it.
Petitioner Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had argued that unscientific practices are detrimental and exploitative, particularly towards vulnerable individuals. He contended that a strict anti-superstition and sorcery law is necessary to protect people from fraudsters.
“You don’t become a social reformer merely by filing a petition in court, Mr. Upadhyay. Many reformers have achieved change without going to court. We must work within the framework of the law.”
The petition invoked Article 51A of the Constitution, which includes the duty to develop a scientific temper and promote humanism.
“A stringent Anti-Superstition and Sorcery Law is urgently needed to:
(i) Eradicate unscientific practices that harm the community; (ii) Ensure a dignified life for all citizens, especially the SC-ST community, preventing discrimination based on irrational beliefs; (iii) Stop fake seers from exploiting innocent people; (iv) Foster scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform; and (v) Prevent the assassination of social activists like Dabholkar and Pansare,” the statement read.
The plea, filed by Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, claimed that the government’s failure to address these practices infringes upon fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution—covering equality, life and personal liberty, and freedom of religion.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: Transfer of ‘Farmers Protest Case’ to Punjab and Haryana High Court
It also proposed forming an expert committee to explore criminalizing superstition and sorcery within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
While recognizing the need for legislation, Upadhyay acknowledged that law alone cannot eradicate deeply rooted irrational beliefs.
“Legislation is necessary but insufficient on its own. A mental shift is also required to address the prevalence of irrational views,”
the petition stated.
The bench refrained from discussing the petition’s merits, concluding that the solution to superstition lies beyond the judiciary’s scope. It emphasized that education, societal reform, and legislative action are essential for tackling this issue, leaving the decision to Parliament.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
