Judicial Precedents On Harassment Of Minority Communities
1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556
Issue: Rights of Muslim women under secular law vs. personal law.
Facts:
Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband and denied maintenance. She filed a case under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance. Her husband argued that under Muslim Personal Law, he was not liable beyond the iddat period.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, holding that Section 125 CrPC applies to all citizens, irrespective of religion. The Court emphasized that personal laws cannot override the constitutional guarantee of equality and justice.
Significance:
This case was a turning point in asserting that minority personal laws must align with the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution. Though it led to political controversy and the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the judgment still stands as a defense of minority women's rights against discrimination.
2. State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1995) Supp (4) SCC 469
Issue: Atrocities against Dalits (Scheduled Castes), a constitutionally recognized minority.
Facts:
Dalits in a Karnataka village were being prevented from using public facilities such as water tanks and temples by dominant caste members.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of untouchability and caste-based discrimination is a violation of Articles 15 and 17 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the conviction of the dominant caste members under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Significance:
Though not a religious minority, Scheduled Castes are constitutionally protected. This judgment reinforced the principle that constitutional morality prevails over social morality and that state authorities have a duty to prevent harassment and ensure justice to minority communities.
3. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case) (2018) 10 SCC 1
Issue: Gender-based exclusion of women (including minorities) from religious practices.
Facts:
Women between the ages of 10–50 were barred from entering the Sabarimala temple. Petitioners argued that this violated their right to equality and freedom of religion.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that religious practices that violate constitutional rights cannot be protected under Article 25. The judgment emphasized that women from any religion, including religious minorities, cannot be denied access to religious places.
Significance:
This case expanded the protection of minority gender rights within religious communities, holding that faith cannot be a cover for exclusion and discrimination.
4. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501
Issue: Mob lynching and hate crimes against religious minorities.
Facts:
There was a rise in lynching incidents, particularly against Muslims and Dalits, often in the name of cow protection. The petitioner sought directions from the Supreme Court to curb this violence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines for preventing, investigating, and prosecuting mob lynching cases. It held that mob violence is an affront to the rule of law and the dignity of individuals, particularly affecting religious minorities.
Key Guidelines:
Designation of nodal officers in every district.
Fast-track courts for mob violence cases.
Compensation schemes for victims.
Accountability of police officials for failure to act.
Significance:
This is a major precedent for state accountability and protection of religious minorities from hate crimes. The Court acknowledged the targeted nature of the attacks and mandated proactive steps.
5. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438
Issue: Recognition of transgender persons as a minority community.
Facts:
The petition sought legal recognition and protection for transgender persons under the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender, and directed the government to treat them as a "socially and educationally backward class" entitled to reservation and welfare benefits.
Significance:
This ruling broadened the definition of minority to include gender minorities and set the foundation for subsequent legislation like the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
6. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
Issue: Freedom of religion of a religious minority (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Facts:
Three children belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith were expelled from school for refusing to sing the national anthem, believing it conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that forcing anyone to sing the national anthem against their religious belief violates Article 25 (freedom of religion). The children were ordered to be reinstated.
Significance:
This case is a landmark in defending religious freedom of minorities, particularly in the context of state-imposed nationalism.
7. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
Issue: Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Facts:
The case dealt with the extent of state regulation over minority-run educational institutions.
Judgment:
A 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that religious and linguistic minorities have the fundamental right under Article 30(1) to establish and administer their own educational institutions. However, this right is subject to reasonable regulation but not total control.
Significance:
This judgment strengthened the institutional autonomy of minority communities and reinforced constitutional protections in education.
Conclusion
Indian constitutional jurisprudence has been active and evolving in protecting the rights of minorities against harassment, exclusion, and discrimination. The above judgments reflect:
The commitment of the judiciary to uphold constitutional morality over social or religious orthodoxy.
Recognition that harassment or exclusion of minorities—whether religious, caste-based, gender-based, or sexual identity-based—is inconsistent with fundamental rights.
The requirement that state authorities act affirmatively to prevent and redress such harassment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments