The Supreme Court of India is currently weighing a fundamental question of linguistic and legal interpretation: whether the English text of the Constitution should yield to its authoritative Hindi version when defining the boundaries of religious freedom. At the center of the debate is the distinction between “morality” as a broad, evolving legal concept and “sadachar,” a term rooted in established custom, and conduct.
During recent live updates from Supreme Court proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee argued that the court must rely on the Hindi version of the Constitution to interpret the limitations placed on religious practices. This argument hinges on Article 394A of the Indian Constitution, which provides for an authoritative text in Hindi, asserting that this version is not merely a translation but a primary legal source.
The legal friction arises from Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee the freedom of religion subject to “public order, morality, and health.” Although the English term “morality” is often interpreted by the judiciary through the lens of “constitutional morality”—a dynamic concept used to protect individual rights and democratic values—the government contends that the Hindi equivalent, “sadachar,” implies a much more conservative, tradition-based standard.
The Linguistic Divide: Morality vs. Sadachar
ASG Banerjee presented a detailed argument that the word “morality” in the context of religious freedom should be read strictly as “sadachar.” According to the government’s submission, “sadachar” refers to approved customs and proper conduct as recognized by historical and linguistic authorities. To support this, the ASG referenced the Brihat Hindi Kosh, noting that the phrase “accha acharan is sadachar” (good conduct is sadachar) defines the term as something that already exists and is accepted by society.
The government’s position is that “constitutional morality” is a distinct legal instrument applicable to the functioning of state structures and conventions, but not to the regulation of religious denominations. By framing “sadachar” as “approved custom over a period of time,” the government seeks to prevent the court from using modern constitutional interpretations to override long-standing religious practices.
This distinction creates a significant pivot in how the court may view the intersection of faith and law. If the court accepts that “sadachar” is the authoritative standard, it may limit the ability of the state—or the judiciary—to strike down religious practices on the grounds of evolving social morality, provided those practices are rooted in established custom.
Comparing Interpretations of Religious Conduct
| Concept | English Interpretation (Constitutional Morality) | Hindi Interpretation (Sadachar) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Democratic values and individual rights | Approved customs and traditional conduct |
| Nature | Evolving and prospective | Existing and accepted |
| Application | Constitutional structures and conventions | Religious practice and denomination |
The ‘Swadeshi’ Approach to Constitutional Law
The proceedings have also touched upon the concept of a “swadeshi” (indigenous) interpretation of the Constitution. ASG Banerjee pointed to previous judicial references, including a Presidential reference regarding the Governor’s role in signing Bills, to argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that respects the local and linguistic context of India rather than relying solely on Western legal frameworks.
The ASG noted that while the court may have discussed the Greek understanding of morality—focusing on respect for the law and the state—such a framework cannot be used to “circumscribe” the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26. The government maintains that the framers of the Constitution did not envisage “constitutional morality” as a tool to limit these specific religious liberties.
This argument is part of a broader effort to define “religious denomination” through the Hindi term “sampraday,” further reinforcing the government’s push for a linguistic interpretation that prioritizes the Hindi text as the authoritative guide for the court’s decision.
Impact and Implications for Religious Freedom
The outcome of this interpretative battle has profound implications for how the Supreme Court of India handles cases involving religious rights. If the “sadachar” interpretation prevails, it could create a higher threshold for the state to interfere in religious customs, as “morality” would be tied to “approved custom” rather than a shifting societal or judicial consensus on what is “right.”
Stakeholders in this debate include not only the government and the litigants but also various religious denominations whose practices may be scrutinized under these two competing definitions. The tension lies in whether the Constitution is a “living document” that evolves through the lens of constitutional morality, or a text whose boundaries are fixed by the authoritative language of its Hindi version.
Disclaimer: This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The court is expected to further deliberate on these submissions before issuing a final judgment. The next phase of the proceedings will likely focus on whether the authoritative Hindi version can override established English precedents in cases where the two versions suggest different legal outcomes.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on this legal debate in the comments below and share this update with others following the Supreme Court’s developments.
