Justice Oka Calls for Scientific Temper to Battle Superstitions in India

New Delhi, December 5, 2025 – In a poignant address that bridged constitutional imperatives with societal realities, former Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oka delivered the 16th V.M. Tarkunde Memorial Lecture, emphasizing the urgent need for India to cultivate a "scientific temper" to eradicate pervasive superstitions. Speaking at the India International Centre under the theme "Our Constitution and the Fundamental Duty to Develop a Scientific Temper," Justice Oka highlighted how Article 51A(h) of the Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to foster scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform. His remarks serve as a clarion call for legal practitioners, judges, and policymakers to actively enforce these duties in combating irrational practices that undermine individual dignity and public welfare.

Justice Oka's lecture, organized by the Tarkunde Memorial Foundation to honor the legacy of Justice V.M. Tarkunde—a pioneering figure in civil liberties, constitutionalism, and public interest litigation—underscored the symbiotic relationship between fundamental rights and duties. With over 76 years of constitutional governance, India continues to grapple with societal barriers to progress, where reformers advocating science-based changes in religious practices face backlash from entrenched groups. "In a country like India, we desperately need scientific temper as in our society, superstitions prevail," Justice Oka stated, drawing attention to the blurred lines between faith and superstition that often invoke Article 25's right to freedom of religion as a shield against critique.

The Constitutional Framework: Rights and Duties in Harmony

At the heart of Justice Oka's discourse is the interplay between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IVA (Fundamental Duties) of the Indian Constitution. He elaborated that duties are not mere moral exhortations but enforceable complements to rights, ensuring their realization for all. For instance, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is bolstered by the duty under Article 51A(a) to abide by the Constitution, creating a collective responsibility to protect others' expressive freedoms.

Justice Oka extended this logic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, arguing that a dignified existence is intrinsically linked to environmental protection and scientific rationality. Citing clause (g) of Article 51A—which mandates citizens to protect the natural environment and show compassion for living creatures—he connected it to the precautionary principle in environmental jurisprudence. This principle, rooted in constitutional duties, cautions against actions with potential irreversible harm, as seen in landmark cases interpreting Article 21 to include the right to a pollution-free environment.

Notably, Justice Oka referenced the recent Supreme Court decision in the Vanashakti case, where a 2:1 majority recalled a prior judgment barring post-facto environmental clearances. While he refrained from critiquing the ruling directly, his allusion invites scrutiny: Has the Court deviated from precautionary imperatives embedded in fundamental duties? For legal professionals, this raises questions about judicial consistency in balancing development with constitutional mandates, potentially influencing future environmental litigation where Article 51A(g) and (h) could be invoked to challenge approvals that ignore scientific evidence.

Targeting Reformers: The Chill on Religious and Social Progress

A central theme of the lecture was the societal hostility toward those promoting reforms grounded in science. "Anyone who proposes reforms in religious practices based on science or with help of science gets targeted by people belonging to religious groups. This applies squarely to all religions," Justice Oka observed. He lamented that such targeting misinterprets constitutional protections, projecting scientific critique as an assault on Article 25's freedoms of conscience and religious practice.

This phenomenon, Justice Oka argued, perpetuates superstitions that conflict with the duty to develop scientific temper under Article 51A(h). Developing this temper, he clarified, demands "rational thinking and spirit of reform," including the integrity to accept inconvenient data over popular beliefs. In a society where faith and superstition are conflated, reformers risk being labeled as interferers in religious affairs, stifling the humanism and inquiry the Constitution enshrines.

From a legal standpoint, this critique has profound implications. Public interest lawyers may increasingly rely on Article 51A(h) to petition courts against practices like animal sacrifices during festivals or the indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, framing them as violations of duties that impinge on others' rights to dignity and a serene environment. Justice Oka pointed to the state's failure in this regard, citing a proposal to fell century-old trees for the 2025 Kumbh Mela as emblematic of how political appeasement trumps constitutional reform. Such examples highlight potential grounds for writ petitions under Article 32 or 226, urging courts to enforce fundamental duties as positive obligations on the state.

Environmental and Ethical Dimensions: Precaution and Compassion

Justice Oka wove environmental ethics into his narrative, asserting that clause (g) of Article 51A traces the precautionary principle's origins. This principle, now a cornerstone of Indian environmental law, requires anticipatory action against environmental risks, as affirmed in cases like Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996). By linking it to the duty for compassion toward living creatures, he advocated for a holistic approach where scientific temper informs policy, preventing practices that harm ecosystems under the guise of tradition.

He critiqued the superficial adoption of technology, noting that mere gadgetry does not equate to scientific mindset—a subtle rebuke to modern India's digital facade masking irrational undercurrents. For the legal community, this underscores the need to integrate Article 51A into judicial reasoning, perhaps through amicus curiae interventions in cases involving cultural practices with ecological fallout. The recent Vanashakti recall, for instance, could prompt renewed debates on whether post-facto clearances undermine the precautionary ethos, inviting appeals that invoke fundamental duties to safeguard Article 21 rights.

Ethically, Justice Oka decried unaddressed atrocities like animal killings for religious celebrations, positing that a scientifically tempered society would prohibit them. This aligns with evolving jurisprudence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, where courts have increasingly drawn on constitutional duties to restrict exploitative rituals. Legal scholars may see this as an opportunity to advocate for legislation that operationalizes Article 51A(h), such as guidelines for festival regulations that prioritize evidence-based harm assessment.

The Role of the State and Political Will

Justice Oka did not spare the political class, accusing them of religious appeasement that hinders reforms. "If we had perfectly performed our duty of developing scientific temper and spirit of reforms, we would not have allowed killing and sacrificing of animals for celebrating religious festivals," he remarked. This failure, he argued, breaches the state's collective duty under Article 51A to protect citizens' rights, including the right to live with dignity in a superstition-free milieu.

For constitutional lawyers, this critique spotlights the enforceable nature of fundamental duties post the 42nd Amendment. While duties lack direct justiciability, courts have indirectly enforced them through rights-based litigation, as in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. Justice Oka's address could catalyze public interest suits compelling the state to educate on scientific temper, potentially under the Right to Education Act, 2009, to fulfill its directive principles under Article 51A(k).

He concluded by urging the inclusion of clauses (a), (g), and (h) in academic curricula, sensitizing future generations. This proposal resonates with Article 51A's educational mandate, offering a pathway for legal interventions to mandate constitutional literacy in schools, thereby institutionalizing reform.

Implications for the Legal Profession: A Call to Action

Justice Oka's lecture is more than rhetorical; it challenges the bar and bench to operationalize fundamental duties in practice. In an era of rising communal tensions and environmental crises, promoting scientific temper could fortify constitutional democracy against populist excesses. Lawyers might explore horizontal application of duties—enforcing them against private actors in religious institutions—via tort or equity claims.

The address also invites reflection on judicial activism. As a former apex court judge, Oka's views lend weight to arguments for proactive enforcement of Article 51A(h), potentially influencing interpretations in freedom of religion cases. For instance, challenges to superstitious practices could pivot on balancing Article 25 with duties under 51A, as seen in the Sabarimala verdict's emphasis on rationality.

Moreover, in the context of global human rights discourse, India's constitutional framework positions it uniquely to lead on science-religion reconciliation. Legal academics could draw parallels with international covenants like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, promoting scientific freedoms.

As India navigates its constitutional journey, Justice Oka's words remind us: "I believe that a person can live a dignified life only if we have developed a scientific temper." For legal professionals, this is an imperative to advocate, litigate, and educate toward a rational, humane society—one where duties illuminate rights, and superstitions yield to inquiry.