By Justice (R) Markandey Katju (India)
A hallmark of a civilised society is that minorities therein can live with dignity and honour. From that standpoint I do not regard India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh as civilised countries. In India, particularly in recent years, atrocities are often committed against the Muslim minority. Incidents have happened where they are lynched, their houses bulldozed, they have been brutally beaten for not saying ‘Jai Shri Ram’, and they have been arrested and incarcerated in jail on false and fabricated charges (e.g. Umar Khalid and Prof Mahmudabad). Atrocities have also been committed on the
Christian minority.
In Pakistan, atrocities have been committed on Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs. Similarly, in Bangladesh, atrocities are often committed against the Hindu minority.
I have always condemned atrocities and discrimination against minorities, and I may here relate 3 occasions when I put my principle into practice :
(1) When I was a Judge in the Allahabad High Court a criminal appeal came before me in which some Muslim boys in a village in the state of UP had been convicted by the trial court for gang raping a young dalit Hindu girl. In Uttar Pradesh (which is the largest State in India of about 246 million people) Muslims are about 18% of the total population. But in that particular village in U.P. where this incident happened 90% people were Muslims, and only about 10% Hindus, most of them being dalits (or low caste Hindus).
I upheld the conviction, and observed that a
hallmark of a civilized society is the protection it gives to minorities. It is the solemn duty of every person belonging to the majority community in a particular area to see to it that the minorities in that area live with dignity and respect. In that particular case, it was the duty of the Muslims of that village (who were 90% in that village) to ensure that the Hindus could live with respect, but instead of doing so the accused had gang raped a dalit girl. Hence I awarded the accused harsh punishment.
https://theadvocatepost.org/blog/2024/08/09/the-rise-and-fall-of-empires-the-ever-changing-landscape-of-global-power/
However, I also observed in the same judgment that had the Hindus been the majority in the village it would have been their duty to see that Muslims or Christian (or any other minority in the village) could live with dignity, and if in such a village some Hindus committed a similar crime they would also be given harsh punishment.
(2) When I was Chief Justice of the
Madras High Court, a case came before my bench, Mohamed Gani vs Supdt of Police ( see online ) relating to a village in Dindigul district in Tamilnadu. In Tamilnadu about 90% people are Hindus, 5% are Muslims, and 5% Christians.
In that village, Muslims constituted a tiny minority. Their grievance was that they were not being permitted by some Hindus, who constituted the vast majority, from taking their dead bodies to their graveyard on a public street, because there was a Hindu temple adjacent to the street, and it allegedly hurt their sentiments.
Allowing the writ petition of the Muslims, we held that since it was a public, not private, street, Muslims had a right under th Constitution to take their dead bodies on that street, and we ordered the police to ensure strict compliance of our order. We observed :
This is a free, democratic and secular country. In our country people of all religions, castes and communities are equal under the Constitution, vide Articles 14 to 18, and they have a right freely to practice their religion, vide Article 25.
India does not belong to Hindus alone. It belongs equally to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, etc., and all are equal under the law. Also, it is not that only Hindus can live in this country as first rate citizens while others can live only as second rate citizens. That is not so. In our country all citizens are, and are entitled to live, as first rate citizens.
https://theadvocatepost.org/blog/2025/07/01/muharram-and-holi-a-historic-tale-of-communal-harmony-in-india-during-nawab-wajid-ali-shahs-reign/
It is the greatness of our Founding Fathers who made the Constitution that at the time of Independence in 1947 when the sub continent was engulfed in religious madness they insisted that our country shall not be declared as a Hindu State, but shall be a secular State. This was indeed a very difficult thing to do at that time, because when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool mind. There must have been tremendous pressure on our Founding Fathers to declare India a Hindu State, particularly since Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic State. It is the greatness of our Founding Fathers that they kept a cool mind and resisted these pressures, and provided for a secular state in India under our Constitution.
A basic feature of India is that it is a country with tremendous diversity having so many religions (including their different sects), castes (including hundreds of sub-castes), communities, languages, ethnic groups, etc. Hence, the only policy that can work in this country, and keep it united and on the path of progress is the policy of secularism and giving equal respect to all religions, castes, ethnic groups, communities, languages, cultures, etc. Without such a policy our country cannot survive for long ”.
(3) As mentioned above, 90% population of Tamilnadu is Hindu, and Muslims constitute only 5%.
When I was Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, some Muslim lawyers of the High Court, led by Mr Habibullah Basha, a former Advocate General of the state, met me one day in my chamber. Their grievance was that while there were Hindu temples in many places near the High Court, there was no Muslim mosque nearby where they could say their Friday prayers (Muslims often offer namaaz at home, but on Fridays they wish to offer it in a mosque).
Now I am an atheist, but am also a strong supporter of religious freedom, especially for minorities.
So I allotted some land within the High Court premises where the Muslim lawyers of the High Court could build a mosque for offering namaaz (at their own expense), and accordingly the Muslim lawyers built a small mosque there (by collecting contributions). Now the interesting thing is that there is no Hindu temple within the Madras High Court premises, although Hindus comprise of 90% of the population of Tamilnadu, whereas Muslims, comprising of only 5%, have a mosque there. The vast majority of lawyers in the Madras High Court are Hindus, and only a tiny minority are Muslims
Some people may accuse me of Muslim appeasement and pampering. But I am not in politics, and do not seek Muslim votes (like our ‘secular’ political parties). So why did I do this ?
I did it because I believe that while all men and women are equal, and therefore there should be no distinction between Hindus and Muslims, special care should be taken in a civilised society of the feelings of minorities, since being in the minority they are in a more vulnerable and defenseless position.
