The Supreme Court is grappling with a fundamental question: should it rely on the English or Hindi text of the Constitution to interpret the meaning of 'denomination' in Article 26? This issue is central to resolving the apparent conflict between individual religious freedom and denominational religious rights. The question has arisen repeatedly before a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which is nearing the end of a prolonged debate on faith versus fundamental rights, reignited by the controversial 2018 Supreme Court judgment that quashed the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple's custom of barring women aged 10-50.
Background of the Debate
Several senior advocates argued that the landmark Shirur Mutt judgment of 1954 erred in interpreting 'denomination' by adopting its definition from the Oxford Dictionary, which they claim carries a Western religious bias. That judgment defined the word as: 'A collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name.' The advocates contended that the correct meaning is found in the Hindi version of the Constitution, where 'denomination' is translated as 'sampradaya'.
Government's Position
However, the Kerala government, represented by senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, argued that the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution framed in English, and the Hindi translation was never adopted by the Assembly. Therefore, the Supreme Court should rely on the English text. Gupta insisted on this position despite the insertion of Article 394A through a constitutional amendment in 1987, which states: 'The translation of this Constitution and of every amendment thereof published under this Article shall be deemed, for all practical purposes, the authoritative text thereof in the Hindi language.'
Implications
The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching implications for religious denominations and their rights under Article 26, as well as for the interpretation of other constitutional provisions where Hindi and English texts may diverge. The bench is expected to deliver a verdict that will clarify the authoritative version of the Constitution for legal interpretation.
