Secularism as India Practises It

In one line

Indian secularism is not a wall between religion and the State but a principled distance from all religions, which lets the State regulate and reform them while belonging to none.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: secularism in India means that the State has no religion of its own, treats all religions equally, and neither favours nor penalises a person for belief. It differs from the American model of separation because the Constitution expressly permits the State to regulate secular activity associated with religious practice under article 25(2)(a) and to legislate for social welfare and reform under article 25(2)(b). It is not merely a Preamble adjective: it has been held to be a basic feature of the Constitution, so a State government acting against the secular character of the Constitution is amenable to action under article 356, and an electoral appeal on religious grounds is a corrupt practice.

The four propositions Indian secularism contains

One: the State has no religion. There is no established church; article 27 forbids compelling payment of a tax whose proceeds are appropriated for the promotion or maintenance of a particular religion; article 28(1) forbids religious instruction in a wholly State-funded institution.

Two: the State treats all religions equally. Articles 15(1) and 16(2) forbid discrimination on the ground of religion, article 29(2) forbids denial of admission to a State-aided institution on that ground, and article 325 forbids exclusion from the electoral roll on it.

Three: the State may regulate and reform religion. Article 25(2)(a) preserves the power to regulate economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice; article 25(2)(b) preserves the power to legislate for social welfare and reform and to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Four: the State protects the minority. Articles 29 and 30, which give a religious minority rights the majority does not have. That is a deliberate asymmetry and it is why Indian secularism is not neutrality in the simple sense.

The usual name for the combination is principled distance, and the phrase captures it: the State keeps its distance from religion but may step in, in favour of a religion or against it, where equality or a reform requires.

The cases MU's stem asks for

Secularism is a basic feature and its breach can cost a government its office. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1. Facts. A group of appeals about Proclamations under article 356 dismissing State Governments, including those of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh on 15 January 1993 after the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya. Held. Among twelve conclusions, that the satisfaction under article 356 is subjective but conditioned, relevant material being a precondition; that the Proclamation is reviewable and may be struck down if mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds; that a government's majority is tested on the floor of the House; and that SECULARISM IS A BASIC FEATURE, so that a State government which acts against the secular character of the Constitution is amenable to action under article 356. The Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland Proclamations were held bad; those relating to Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were upheld. Why it matters here is that this is the case that turns secularism from an adjective into an operative standard with a sanction.