Justice Oka Calls for Science-Based Religious Reform to Combat Environmental Degradation

New Delhi – In a powerful address that intertwined constitutional duties, religious practices, and environmental jurisprudence, retired Supreme Court judge Justice AS Oka has asserted that religious practices causing pollution must be reformed on the basis of science. Speaking at a lecture organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Oka delivered a trenchant critique of the widespread failure by both the State and its citizens to uphold their fundamental duty to protect the environment, arguing that no religion sanctions environmental destruction or cruelty to animals.

The lecture, titled “Clean Air, Climate Justice and We – Together for a Sustainable Future,” served as a platform for the former judge to dissect the legal and social apathy contributing to India's escalating environmental crisis. He posited that the core of the problem lies in the non-performance of duties enshrined in the Constitution.

The Primacy of Fundamental Duties Under Article 51A

At the heart of Justice Oka's argument was the often-neglected Article 51A of the Constitution, which enumerates the fundamental duties of every citizen. He emphasized that the failure to protect the environment is a direct consequence of the collective failure to adhere to these constitutional mandates.

"The most crucial reason for our failure to protect the environment is the failure of both citizens and the State to perform their fundamental duty under Article 51A of the Constitution," Justice Oka stated, setting a somber tone for his analysis.

He argued that the judiciary, particularly judges, bear a heightened responsibility in this regard. "The Constitution expects all citizens to perform their fundamental duties, and thus it is all the more necessary for judges to do so," he remarked. "They are better equipped than anyone else because they have judicial power to ensure that both citizens and the State perform their duties." This statement underscores a vision of the judiciary not just as an arbiter of rights but as an enforcer of constitutional duties, a perspective that encourages a more proactive role in environmental governance.

Deconstructing Religious Sanction for Polluting Practices

Justice Oka launched a detailed examination of how religious festivals across all faiths have become significant sources of pollution, challenging the notion that such practices are constitutionally protected. He methodically dismantled the argument that polluting activities like bursting firecrackers or using loud music are essential to religious observance.

"Can anyone say that bursting of firecrackers is an essential part of any religion which is protected under our Constitution?" he questioned. He pointed out that the practice is not confined to any single religion, citing its prevalence during Diwali, New Year's celebrations, and marriages across communities. "When we celebrate festivals, we do it for joy and happiness... But the question is, how is there joy and happiness by bursting crackers?"

His critique extended to noise pollution, which he described as an "unbearable" consequence of religious celebrations. He invoked established legal precedent to support his view, highlighting a Bombay High Court judgment, later affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that the use of loudspeakers for Azaan (the Islamic call to prayer) is not protected under Article 25 as it does not constitute an essential religious practice.

By applying the 'essential religious practices' test, Justice Oka framed the issue in clear constitutional terms. The jurisprudence on this doctrine, primarily flowing from the Shirur Mutt case, allows courts to distinguish between the core, essential tenets of a religion and secular or superfluous practices. His application of this doctrine to widespread environmental pollutants like firecrackers and loudspeakers suggests a clear legal pathway for state regulation without infringing upon the freedom of religion.

A Call for Scientific Reformation and Political Accountability

Justice Oka’s most compelling proposition was his call for religious reform grounded in scientific principles. He argued that blind faith cannot be a justification for harmful practices and that the Constitution itself promotes a spirit of inquiry and reform.

"The Constitution does not tell you not to keep faith in God. It says that you must initiate reforms, and reforms can be initiated only on the basis of science," he declared. This call for a rational, evidence-based evolution of religious customs that intersect with public welfare is a significant push towards harmonizing faith with modern environmental and social realities.

He also did not spare the political class, accusing leaders of not only failing to discourage polluting activities but actively encouraging them. This observation points to a systemic issue where political expediency often trumps environmental responsibility, undermining legal and judicial efforts to enforce green norms.

The Perils of Environmental Adjudication

In a sobering conclusion, Justice Oka shed light on the increasing hostility faced by judges who deliver strong environmental orders. "I understand that people may not support, but now they are being targeted... Even the judges who pass strong orders are being targeted," he revealed. This alarming trend signals a growing resistance to environmental regulation and poses a threat to the independence of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. It highlights the personal and professional risks involved for members of the bench who champion environmental causes, making their constitutional role even more challenging.

Justice Oka's speech serves as a critical reminder to the legal fraternity and society at large that the right to a clean and healthy environment is intrinsically linked to the performance of constitutional duties. His incisive analysis provides a robust legal and moral framework for re-evaluating the balance between religious freedom, public health, and ecological preservation, urging a collective shift towards a more sustainable and constitutionally-conscious future.