Historical Significance:-

The secular nature of the State was, reflected through different articles in the Indian Constitution. It was
a lot later in 1976, that the word secular was included the Preamble to the Constitution (42nd
Amendment Act, 1976). Indian Constitutional and Legislative history is created with one inconsistency –
the utilization of enactments to achieve changes in the larger part religion alone, overlooking the clatter
of changes emerging from the mistreated in the minority network.

In 1986, as a response to the Supreme Court’s judgment for Shah Bano in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah
Bano Begum[1], the Parliament of India passed a demonstration titled The Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, that invalidated the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shah Bano
judgment. Weakening the Supreme Court judgment, the demonstration enabled upkeep to a separated
from lady just amid the time of iddat, or till 90 days after the separation, as indicated by the
arrangements of Islamic law. This was as a conspicuous difference to Section 125 of the Code. The risk of
spouse to pay the upkeep was along these lines confined to the time of the iddat as it were. This was an
unmistakable dissimilarity from the set up standards of secularism, uniformity, equity to anchor brownie
focuses for anchoring the votes of Orthodox Muslim men.

Legislative Framework:-

One may even venture to such an extreme as to state that it is India alone which has kept alive the
world’s enthusiasm for secularism, and to include that doubt about India’s secularism outside India isn’t
obscure. Indian secularism as a core value to our Constitution was being addressed directly from when
the Constituent Assembly was drafting India’s constitution. In the contemporary period, calls for
returning to secularism have emerged not on the grounds that there is a sudden flood of conservative
gatherings, both at the middle and in the states, but since secularism in India’s setting was being abused
by ideological groups cutting crosswise over belief systems.

India is one of the most secular states as held by the provisions of Constitution in a nutshell. But, it’s a
high time to understand via the roots of politic if it is for the real sense and manner if the word is used
for or is it simply for the sake of position in the Preamble to simply show that our country is mere
secular and the umbrella legislation book of our country. During the time of framing of our Constitution
and after India got Independence in 1947, many freedom fighters and political members of our country,
looking upon the rich taste and diversified nature of people all across the length and breadth of the
country.The issues were created when the political aspects and perceptions of the people were mixed
with the ongoing socio-economic problems and the blend got to a far off level of dismantling of the
society and spread of hatred amongst the people of various religions which puts on a question mark on
the “secular” state remark and it’s extra-diluted phase,leading to pessimistic religious intolerance in the
nation.

Reality from constitution speaks that Article 25, Right to freedom of religion for the propagation and
practice of religion is the basic root for the religious easement. The further prohibition of the use of
religious institutions for political purposes or the setting up of political organisations on a religious basis
But, In the recent paradigm shift of the pressure of elections upcoming in 2019, the two parties
opposing to each other that is, BJP and INC, are upon full fledged energetic spirit to deal with the
majority of seats followed by other political parties as in the TMC, DMK, BSP,AAP and a lot more. And
this fight for the majority of the seats is the new traumatic phase for the public as the religion is a trump
card along with the reservations amendment used recently and it has played with the emotional
sentiments of the people as well as the new legislation passed is somewhat not complying with the rule
of established law.[2]

People appear to suppose that underneath a profane state, there should be a standard law discovered
by its voters all told matters as well as matters of their existence, their language, their culture, their
personal laws. this can be not the proper thanks to inspect the profane state. in a very profane state,
voters happiness to totally different communities should have the liberty to practice their own faith,
observe their own lives and their personal laws ought to be applied to them.However, what the
Constitutional Assembly debates do tell America, amidst all the contradictions and concessions, is
however they created their own version of philosophical system in their quest to create a nation.While
one will disagree on several things the founders same, what can’t be denied is that the spirit that drove
discussion on one among the foremost important aspects of Indian democracy.[3] The recent Supreme
Court judgement on permitting girls of all age teams into the Sabarimala temple has brought out very
sharp reactions from the two opposite camps, the fashionable liberal teams and also the orthodox
Hindu traditionalists. The judgement has raised the question whether or not a non secular belief that
doesn’t violate the provisions of Article twenty five will be adjudicated by the courts.

Constitutional Basis of Secularism:-

Article 15 of Indian constitution plainly documented that state won’t segregate among the citizens on
the bottom of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them. it’s a fundamental right of
every citizen to be treated equally below the steady gaze of law and state won’t incline toward the
opposite on earlier on any five fouled ground revered below Article 15 of Indian constitution. The state
won’t build up its very own faith and prejudicious treatment is expressly precluded. this is often feature
of secularism, the pundits of Indian secularism use to state that Indian secularism nevertheless it’s
pseudo secularism. Article 14 of Indian constitution accommodates balance below the steady gaze of
law and equivalent insurance of laws, it implies no matter laws are established by the parliament or any
state council or another neighborhood or another skilled as characterized below Article l2 of Indian
constitution. As indicated by this doctrine every individual ought to be treated equally and while not
segregation. Equality is a necessary structure of the Indian constitution. every resident should offer
adequate chance and freedom in their separate life. Article 13 (1) expressly pronounced all laws that
were there in power before the start of Indian constitution as void up to it’s in reliable with part III and a
few alternative piece of Indian constitution. This single proviso under Indian constitution smitten down
each customary law that was in power at the season of starting of Indian constitution. Article 25 of
Indian constitution is termed as a wellspring of secularism because it provides a chance to all or any
people to execute, affirm and proliferate religion of their call. this is often a side of freedom still it is not
total and it’s vulnerable to open request, moral quality, well being and totally different arrangements of
Part III of Indian constitution. Article 26, 27, 28 fully known with the thought character of the Indian
constitution. Article 29 and 30 of the constitution are extraordinary arrangements below the Indian
constitution that secure the passion of non secular and phonetic minorities in India. This is often a
defensive umbrella to minorities to save lots of and secure their terribly own method of life and
conventions. The 42nd Amendment may be a formal articulation of secularism it did not have something
new but it an effect of inward awake to Indian constitution, by the higher than exchange obviously
secularism is constitutional traditional for the constitution.

Landmark Judgments:-

In the landmark judgment of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India[4] the Court clearly pronounced that
secularism is a piece of the essential structure.[5] But the concern emerged in planning a definition.
Ahmadi, J., expressed that secularism relies upon on the “standards of settlement and resilience”. At the
end of the day, an embrace of a “soft secularism”. He would in popular concur with the widened
definition received through the Court in Indra Sawhney[6]. The Court in Bommai ruled that religion and
worldly exercises don’t blend. Opportunity and resistance of religion is just to the diploma of permitting
quest for profound life that is now not the same as mainstream life. The closing falls in the space of the
issues of the State. The Court moreover said that “the infringement of religion into mainstream
exercises is carefully prohibited”[7]. Ramaswamy, J., as he would see it proclaimed that the State has the
duty to assurance secularism by way of law or an professional request.He clarified that projects or
standards developed by using ideological agencies dependent on religion add up to perceiving faith as a
piece of political administration which the Constitution explicitly prohibited.[8]

Aruna Roy vs. Union of India[9]– In this landmark case related to secularism, the schools were imparting
knowledge based on religion and created distinctions between minority and majority. Even though it
was regarded as not allowed under Article 28, the state funded schools didn’t follow that which created
the issues. The religious studies have to be uniform and there should be religious pluralism followed so
as to respect various cultures across the country.So education shouldn’t be clubbed with religion and
therefore, an Uniform Civil Code should be structured as per Article 44 of the Constitution. In regard to
all areas and perspectives covered under the family law, the differences created between all religious
enactments can be cleared by this. Unless and until the religious disparities are cleared, there can’t be
peace around and secularism is just for a name shake.

Reference to Article 44:-

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution is by all accounts clear as it requires a uniform civil code, in this way
broadcasting, one rule for all.Article 44 of the Indian Constitution is by all accounts clear because it
needs a uniform civil code, during this manner broadcasting, one rule for all[10] religion is wherever
individuals use to pursue bound basic elements of religion; the state can keep itself off from such
practices. whereas overseeing the state it’ll not formally bolster a selected religion. The state should be
unbiased within the preternatural problems with individuals. The opportunity of faith is ensured to
every individual in most vote based mostly nations however such opportunity won’t conciliate problems
within the public arena. lawmaking body, executive and Judiciary are organs of the state, it’s real want
to structure these bodies whereas executing their sovereign capacities they’re going to not get pleasure
from the problems of religion and profound problems with individuals. The individual is allowed to
follow its opportunity but the state should stop itself from unfair improvement over the preternatural or
non secular conviction confidence and loves of individuals. The state won’t pass a law that precludes
individual from active their chance of religion. The state have to be compelled to move toward turning
into guard dog everything being equal and it’ll get pleasure from non secular or preternatural matter of
the individual. the fundamental standard of secularism is non-obstruction hypothesis within the non
secular issue.

Conclusion:-

So, taking it from the viewpoint of the issues whatever it started from the demolition of Babri Masjid
and construction of Ram Mandir yet now, till the gender biased, religion based issues are onto the game
of divide and rule the people of our nation which is the biggest trick used by the political parties. Hence,
the elections 2019 are expected to cause a huge turbulence in the country and the war has started
already for gaining support of people via the vote banks.Secularism therefore has turned into a dubious
and confounded subject in India’s talk. People should be aware in this high time that bread and butter in
peace is a necessity and politics goes in vain unless and until it’s for the best cause to make a country
safe to live in.

________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

[1] Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844

[2] Krishna K. Tummala (1993) Religion and politics in India, Asian Journal of Political Science, 1:2, 57-
76,DOI: 10.1080/02185379308434025

[3] Chaturvedi, Ashok Kumar. “Review of Religious Practice on Politics with Special Reference to
Chhattisgarh State, India.” (2017).

[4] (1994) 3 SCC 1.

[5] Id., per Ahmadi, J., para 29: per Sawant and Kuldip Singh, JJ., para 146: per Ramaswamy, J., para 178:
per Jeevan Reddy and Agrawal, JJ., para 304.

[6] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217.

[7] Supra n. 10 para 148.

[8] Id., para 252.

[9] Ms. Aruna Roy & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors [2002] Insc 388 (12 September 2002)
[10] Shetreet Shimon & Chodosh Hiram E., Uniform Civil Code, Oxford University Press 1 st edition 2015
ISBN: 978-0-19-807712-1 Page No. 27.