Supreme Court Upholds Secularism in State Festival, Dismisses Religious Challenge

New Delhi, September 19, 2025 – In a swift and definitive ruling that reinforces the constitutional tenet of secularism, the Supreme Court of India today dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Karnataka government's decision to invite International Booker Prize-winning author Banu Mushtaq to inaugurate the state-sponsored Mysuru Dasara festivities. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphatically rejected the plea, which argued that a non-Hindu could not perform the associated religious rituals.

The dismissal brings a firm judicial end to a contentious debate that had escalated from the Karnataka High Court to the nation's apex court. The petitioner, H.S. Gaurav, represented by Senior Advocate PB Suresh, contended that the inauguration, involving an 'Agrahara puja' at the Chamundeshwari temple, was a religious act that could not be performed by a person of a different faith. However, the Supreme Court bench was resolute, dismissing the petition at the outset. When counsel persisted, Justice Nath pointedly remarked, "We have said 'dismissed' 3 times. How many dismissals are required?" The terse exchange underscored the court's unwillingness to entertain a challenge it viewed as contrary to fundamental constitutional principles.

The case, titled H.S. GAURAV Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 26999/2025 , centered on the distinction between a private religious ceremony and a state-sponsored cultural festival that incorporates religious traditions.

The High Court's Foundational Reasoning

The Supreme Court's decision affirms a comprehensive judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court on September 15, 2025. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi had dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), including those filed by former MP Pratap Simha and H.S. Gaurav.

The petitioners had argued before the High Court that inviting Ms. Mushtaq, a celebrated author, lawyer, and social activist, to perform rituals such as lighting a sacred lamp and offering flowers to the deity violated Hindu Agamic traditions. They also alleged that Ms. Mushtaq had previously made remarks that were "anti-Hindu and anti-Kannada."

The High Court meticulously dismantled these arguments, grounding its decision in constitutional law. It held that the petitioners' rights under Articles 25 (freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion) and 26 (right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs) were in no way infringed. The court's order stated:

“Participation of a person practising a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under the Constitution of India. In our view, the extension of invitation to respondent No.4 [Banu Mushtaq] does not fall foul of any of the values enshrined in the Constitution of India.”

Crucially, the High Court observed that the Dasara festivities are organized and funded by the State of Karnataka, not a private religious denomination. It noted that the decision to invite Ms. Mushtaq was made by a committee comprising elected representatives from various political parties and government officials, highlighting the secular and inclusive nature of the selection process.

Arguments at the Apex Court: A Swift Rejection

Despite the High Court's clear ruling, the petitioner sought an urgent hearing at the Supreme Court, citing the impending inauguration on September 22. Senior Advocate PB Suresh presented three main arguments:

• Religious Nature of the Act: He contended that a "puja inside a temple cannot be regarded as a secular act" and that the government's invitation was a "purely political" move to bring a non-believer into a sacred religious activity.
• Alleged Past Statements: Counsel alleged that Ms. Mushtaq had made objectionable statements in the past that hurt religious sentiments, making her an unsuitable choice for the honour.
• Violation of Tradition: The core of the plea was that religious rituals associated with the inauguration could only be performed by a practicing Hindu.

The Supreme Court bench remained entirely unpersuaded. Justice Vikram Nath immediately questioned the petitioner's locus and foundation, asking, "Why did you file this petition?" He drew a sharp line between a private religious event and a state function, stating, "This is a state event not a private one... dismissed."

The bench's refusal to delve into the petitioner's arguments signifies a strong judicial message: state actions promoting inclusivity and constitutional values of fraternity and secularism will be protected from challenges based on narrow interpretations of religious practice. By referencing the Preamble, as Justice Nath did during the hearing, the court elevated the discourse from religious exclusivity to the foundational ideals of the Indian Republic.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The Supreme Court's dismissal, though brief, carries significant weight for constitutional jurisprudence.

• Reinforcing Secularism in State Functions: The ruling solidifies the principle that when the state organizes or sponsors a cultural or religious festival, it must do so in a secular manner. Inviting a distinguished citizen from another faith is seen not as an infringement of religion, but as an expression of the state's commitment to inclusivity.
• Limiting Judicial Scrutiny in Policy Decisions: The court demonstrated its reluctance to interfere in a policy decision of the executive, especially when the decision aligns with constitutional morality. The choice of an inaugurator for a state festival is deemed a governmental prerogative, immune from judicial review unless it is manifestly arbitrary or violates a fundamental right.
• Interpreting Articles 25 and 26: The case provides a practical application of Articles 25 and 26. The High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, clarified that these articles protect an individual's or denomination's right to practice their faith without interference; they do not grant a right to exclude others from state-organized events that celebrate that faith. The court noted that no religious denomination had come forward to claim their rights were being violated.
• A Check on Vexatious Litigation: The summary and repeated dismissal serves as a deterrent against filing PILs based on subjective religious sentiments or political motivations, particularly when a lower court has already delivered a well-reasoned judgment on constitutional grounds.

Karnataka's Advocate General, K. Shashikiran Shetty, had effectively argued in the High Court that the state could not discriminate on the basis of religion for a state function. He provided a powerful precedent, noting that in 2017, the late Kannada poet Nisar Ahmed was invited to the same function, and petitioner Pratap Simha himself had shared the stage with him without objection. This historical context further weakened the petitioners' claims of a violated tradition.

As the Mysuru Dasara festivities prepare to commence, the judiciary has delivered a clear verdict: the celebration of India's diverse heritage, even through traditionally religious festivals, is a secular act that can and should unite citizens of all faiths. The invitation to Banu Mushtaq, a Booker Prize laureate celebrated for her contributions to literature and social causes, has been constitutionally vindicated as an act that honors not just an individual, but the very principles of equality and fraternity the nation is built upon.