Indian Judiciary and Hindutva: A Critical Examination of Judicial Perspectives

This paper explores the role of the Indian judiciary in cases involving Hindutva, examining its interpretation of religious, cultural, and political dimensions. Hindutva, as articulated by the Supreme Court, is often understood as a broader cultural identity associated with Indian civilization rather than a purely religious ideology. The central research objective of the paper is to assess how judicial interpretations of Hindutva have shaped legal outcomes in key cases and their impact on the constitutional framework of secularism and democracy. While some judicial pronouncements have aligned Hindutva with cultural nationalism, concerns have arisen regarding how these interpretations interact with the secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. Through the examination of case studies such as Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta (1964), Bhairon Singh Shekhawat (1995), and Dr. Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo v. P.K. Kunte, the paper investigates instances where the judiciary engaged with issues of religious and cultural symbolism in electoral contexts. These case studies illustrate the influence of cultural identity on legal reasoning, particularly regarding the use of religious symbols and references during election campaigns. By exploring such cases, the paper aims to reflect on how the judiciary's stance on Hindutva impacts the safeguarding of democratic values and constitutional principles. Ultimately, the paper critically analyzes the relationship between Hindutva and the judiciary, highlighting how the courts' interpretations of cultural and religious symbols have influenced their legal decisions. It further examines the potential of Hindutva's political and cultural underpinnings to shape the judiciary’s role in upholding secularism, potentially shifting the balance between democratic values and ideological influence in modern India.