Is there a need for a national anti-superstition law or are the existing State laws and criminal law provisions adequate?
The existing criminal law statutes do not have any dedicated provisions targeting superstitious practices
As a result, police authorities are often reluctant to register cases against the fraudulent activities of godmen.
While the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, exists, it contains numerous loopholes.
Therefore, a law, modelled on the Maharashtra and Karnataka State laws, must be implemented nationwide.
A common criticism of the Karnataka law is its broad definitions of ‘evil practices’.
This ambiguity can make it difficult to distinguish religious beliefs from superstitions
State governments are often more attuned to the needs and traditions of the local population.
Given India’s diversity, a national law might impose sweeping generalisations that could inadvertently empower already dominant communities.
Thus, State-specific laws are preferable because they can better accommodate local practices and realities.
Criticism against the State laws
A common criticism against the State laws is that they employ expansive and vague definitions, allowing enforcing authorities subjective and potentially discriminatory powers
Challenges in implementing these laws at the grassroots level
There is an acute lack of sensitisation when it comes to law-enforcement agencies.
Police officers are often constrained by cultural sensibilities and biases which prevent them from addressing these issues with a scientific bent of mind.
Significant effort is required to persuade the police to file FIRs in such cases, and even when they do, investigations are often compromised by political influence, leading to low conviction rates
Moreover, caste discrimination is a facet of superstitious beliefs that often goes unnoticed.
This underscores the importance of conducting training programmes for all echelons of the police force since they are typically the first responders.
Conflict with the fundamental right
Article 25 permits reasonable restrictions on the grounds of public order, morality, and health.
Justice Arnould’s opinion in the Maharaja Libel case before the Bombay High Court encapsulates this wonderfully – “that what is morally wrong cannot be theologically right”
So, you cannot say that your religious belief permits you to do something that is morally unconscionable.
Thus, practices that are inherently exploitative will also fall foul of other fundamental rights, including the right to life and the protection against untouchability.
COMMENTS