Justice Oka Urges Scientific Temper to Fight Superstitions and Religious Resistance

In a poignant address that bridged constitutional imperatives with societal realities, retired Supreme Court Justice Abhay S Oka emphasized the urgent need for India to cultivate a "scientific temper" to counter pervasive superstitions and the backlash against religious reforms. Speaking at the 16th V.M. Tarkunde Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on December 5, 2025, Justice Oka highlighted how fundamental duties under the Indian Constitution remain largely unfulfilled, particularly in a society where rational inquiry is often stifled by faith-based opposition. His remarks, centered on the theme "Our Constitution and the Fundamental Duty to Develop a Scientific Temper," underscore a critical tension between constitutional rights and duties, offering a roadmap for legal practitioners, policymakers, and citizens to foster humanism and reform.

Justice Oka's lecture comes at a time when India grapples with ongoing debates over the intersection of religion, science, and law. From environmental clearances influenced by religious events to challenges against practices rooted in superstition, the judiciary has repeatedly invoked constitutional principles to balance individual freedoms with collective responsibilities. For legal professionals, this address serves as a reminder of the symbiotic relationship between fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and the duties outlined in Part IVA, particularly Article 51A(h), which mandates citizens to "develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform."

The Constitutional Foundation: Rights and Duties in Harmony

Justice Oka began by elucidating the complementary nature of fundamental rights and duties, a cornerstone of India's constitutional framework. Article 51A, inserted via the 42nd Amendment in 1976, enumerates 11 fundamental duties that citizens owe to the nation. Clauses (g) and (h) were central to his discourse: the duty to protect the environment and develop scientific temper. He argued that these duties are not mere moral exhortations but enforceable through judicial interpretation, reinforcing rights such as the right to life under Article 21.

Drawing on environmental jurisprudence, Justice Oka linked the precautionary principle—a doctrine evolved by the Supreme Court in cases like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)—directly to Article 51A(g). This principle, which mandates preventive action in the face of potential environmental harm, exemplifies how duties underpin rights. He noted the recent Supreme Court decision in the Vanashakti case, where a 2:1 majority recalled a judgment barring post-facto environmental clearances, but refrained from critiquing whether the Court had deviated from precautionary norms. For lawyers specializing in environmental law, this observation highlights the ongoing evolution of how constitutional duties inform judicial scrutiny of administrative actions, especially those intersecting with religious or cultural practices.

Justice Oka extended this interplay to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a dignified life under Article 21. He posited that the duty to abide by the Constitution (Article 51A(a)) imposes a collective responsibility to safeguard others' expressive freedoms. In the context of Article 21, environmental protection ensures a pollution-free existence, while scientific temper enables rational living. "I believe that a person can live a dignified life only if we have developed a scientific temper," he stated, emphasizing that rational thinking and openness to inconvenient data are prerequisites for true humanism.

This constitutional linkage is particularly relevant for litigators. In an era of rising PILs challenging superstitious practices—such as animal sacrifices during festivals or noise pollution from religious events—Justice Oka's framework provides a doctrinal tool to argue that fundamental duties can temper absolute interpretations of religious freedoms under Article 25.

Societal Realities: Superstitions, Reforms, and Targeting of Reformers

A significant portion of Justice Oka's address critiqued India's societal landscape, where superstitions blur the line between faith and irrationality. "In a country like India, we desperately need scientific temper as in our society, superstitions prevail. We don't understand the difference between faith and superstitions," he remarked. He lamented that despite 76 years of constitutional existence, society has failed to support reformers, often targeting them under the guise of protecting religious rights.

Justice Oka pointed to a pattern applicable "squarely to all religions": anyone proposing science-based reforms in religious practices faces hostility from religious groups. Social reformers speaking against superstitions are accused of infringing Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion. This observation resonates with landmark cases like Sabarimala (2018), where the Supreme Court grappled with essential religious practices versus gender equality, or ongoing disputes over practices like triple talaq, now criminalized under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

He cited practical examples of state complicity in perpetuating superstitions, such as proposals to fell 100-year-old trees for the 2027 Kumbh Mela or the indiscriminate use of loudspeakers during festivals. These, he argued, reflect the state's failure to fulfill its collective duty under Article 51A. "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," Justice Oka asserted. For criminal lawyers, this raises questions about the enforceability of duties through public law remedies, potentially expanding the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226.

Moreover, Justice Oka criticized the political class for appeasing religious sentiments, avoiding reforms that could benefit religions themselves. He clarified that adopting technology—such as digital payments or online rituals—does not equate to scientific temper; true development requires integrity in accepting empirical evidence, even when it challenges popular beliefs.

Legal Implications: Enforcing Duties in a Rights-Centric Framework

For the legal community, Justice Oka's lecture illuminates potential shifts in judicial activism. While fundamental duties are not directly enforceable like rights, the Supreme Court has integrated them into interpretations, as seen in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), where environmental duties bolstered pollution control orders. Justice Oka advocated incorporating duties like clauses (a), (g), and (h) into academic curricula to sensitize future generations, a call that could influence legal education reforms under bodies like the Bar Council of India.

The address also touches on tensions with Article 25(1), which protects religious practices subject to public order, morality, and health. Reformers invoking scientific temper might face defenses claiming cultural essentialism, but Justice Oka's emphasis on the "spirit of reform" aligns with the Court's "essential practices" doctrine from Shirur Mutt (1954). This could empower advocates in cases challenging harmful customs, such as witch-hunting or faith healing, by framing them as violations of duties rather than mere rights infringements.

Potential impacts extend to policy. The state's reluctance to regulate religious events for environmental or public health reasons—evident in noise pollution cases under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—highlights a gap that constitutional duties could fill. Lawyers might increasingly petition for guidelines mandating scientific assessments in religious approvals, drawing on Justice Oka's precautionary principle linkage.

Furthermore, in a diverse nation, his universal critique of religious targeting promotes a secular legal approach. This is timely amid rising communal tensions, where courts must navigate majoritarianism without diluting minority rights. For human rights practitioners, it underscores humanism as a duty, potentially influencing interpretations of equality under Article 14.

Broader Societal and Judicial Impact

Justice Oka's remarks at the Tarkunde Memorial Foundation event—honoring V.M. Tarkunde's legacy in civil liberties—reaffirm the judiciary's role in promoting constitutionalism. Tarkunde, a pioneer in public interest litigation, would have appreciated this blend of idealism and critique. The lecture, live-streamed and widely reported, amplifies calls for judicial training on scientific temper, perhaps integrating it into programs at the National Judicial Academy.

On a societal level, the address challenges the narrative that science and faith are antithetical. By advocating reforms that "help the cause of the religion," Justice Oka positions scientific temper as an enhancer of ethical practices, not a destroyer. This nuanced view could mitigate backlash in litigation, encouraging dialogue over confrontation.

For legal professionals, the implications are profound. In an age of misinformation and pseudoscience, courts may lean more on expert evidence to enforce duties, as in vaccine mandate cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Oka's vision of rational living under Article 21 could expand dignified life jurisprudence, incorporating mental health protections against superstitious harms.

Critics might argue that enforcing scientific temper risks cultural imperialism, but Justice Oka's balanced approach—acknowledging faith's role while decrying superstition—provides a defensible middle path. As India advances technologically, bridging constitutional duties with practice remains imperative.

In conclusion, Justice Oka's lecture is a clarion call for legal stakeholders to champion scientific temper as a lived constitutional value. By doing so, India can transcend superstitions, protect rights through duties, and foster a society where reform is celebrated, not targeted. This address not only enriches constitutional discourse but also equips lawyers with tools to navigate religion-science fault lines, ensuring the Constitution's promise of dignity endures.