Supriyo Chakraborty case and the growing appeal to custom and culture in judicial decisions raise concerns about the impact on Indian democracy and fundamental rights.
Here's how the appeal to custom and culture has impacted the judiciary:
1. Justifying Restriction of Fundamental Rights:
- In the Supriyo Chakraborty case, the judges referred to cultural norms and societal expectations to uphold a law restricting interfaith marriages in Kerala, potentially infringing on individual rights to choose life partners and practice religion.
- Similar invocations of custom have been used to justify practices like the triple talaq ban on grounds of cultural harm, though it's argued that such customs can perpetuate inequality.
2. Ambiguity and Lack of Certainty:
- Reliance on amorphous concepts like "culture" and "custom" introduces ambiguity and subjectivity into legal judgments. This can raise concerns about inconsistent application and potential bias based on individual judges' interpretations.
- Unlike the clear and objective principles enshrined in the Constitution, cultural norms can be fluid and open to interpretation, potentially undermining legal certainty and predictability.
3. Potential for Erosion of Rights:
- When customary practices clash with fundamental rights, relying on the former can lead to the dilution or even negation of the latter. This creates a dangerous precedent where cultural norms supersede individual freedoms.
- The concern is that a slippery slope might be created, where cultural arguments might be used to justify further restrictions on rights beyond the specific cases currently being debated.
However, it's important to acknowledge some nuances:
- Balancing Rights and Culture: Some argue that finding a balance between individual rights and cultural practices is crucial to maintaining social harmony and respecting diverse traditions within Indian society.
- Context-Specific Application: Cultural arguments may be relevant in certain contexts, especially when dealing with sensitive issues like family law or religious customs. The key is to ensure such arguments are used cautiously and with due consideration for fundamental rights.
Indira Jaising's concerns in the 2023 assessment highlight the need for careful scrutiny of how the judiciary utilizes cultural arguments. Balancing cultural preservation with upholding fundamental rights is a delicate task, and the judiciary must ensure its decisions are based on clear legal principles and avoid creating ambiguous precedents that could undermine individual freedoms.
- (With input from news agency language)
If you like this law news, share it with a friend!
0 Comments