Judicial Review of Fundamental Rights During a Pandemic
In the country of Veridia, a severe pandemic leads the government to impose a lockdown, banning all public gatherings, including religious processions. A religious group challenges the ban, arguing that it violates their fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25. The government defends the ban as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) (in the interest of public health) and argues that the right to religion is subject to public order, morality, and health. The group also claims that the ban is discriminatory because it allows essential services but not religious gatherings. The Supreme Court must decide whether the ban is constitutional. The government presents scientific evidence that gatherings accelerate virus transmission. The group argues that the state should have instead imposed safety protocols rather than a blanket ban. The Court must balance individual rights with collective welfare.
1. Is the blanket ban on religious gatherings a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of religion? Apply the tests of proportionality and legitimate aim.
Read the worked answer
The ban is a reasonable restriction if it passes the proportionality test. The legitimate aim is public health, which falls under 'health' in Article 25(1). The restriction must be proportionate to the aim. A blanket ban may be disproportionate if less restrictive alternatives (e.g., allowing gatherings with social distancing) are feasible. However, during a severe pandemic, the state may have evidence that any gathering risks transmission. The Court should defer to expert scientific opinion unless it is manifestly arbitrary. The ban is not discriminatory if it applies equally to all religious gatherings and if essential services are allowed because they are necessary for survival. The test is whether the restriction is the least restrictive means to achieve the aim. Given the emergency, a temporary blanket ban may be justified. The Court should uphold the ban but require periodic review.
2. How should the Court balance the right to freedom of religion with the state's duty to protect public health? Discuss with reference to the doctrine of essential religious practices.
Read the worked answer
The Court must determine whether the banned activity is an essential religious practice. The doctrine of essential religious practices holds that only practices essential to a religion are protected under Article 25. If the gathering is not essential, the ban does not violate the right. Even if it is essential, the state can regulate it on grounds of health. The Court should apply a balancing test: the importance of the practice to the religion versus the severity of the public health threat. During a pandemic, the right to life (Article 21) of the community is paramount. The state's duty to protect public health is a compelling interest. The Court should uphold the ban if it is based on scientific evidence and is temporary. However, the state should consider alternative measures like allowing small gatherings with protocols. The Court can direct the government to review the ban periodically.