Question

5) ‘Many a times, the government does not strictly follow the
policy of non-interference with religious matters and practice.'
Support the statement with example​

Answer 1

Answer:

Explanation:

The second follows on from the first: as  remarks in the case of the USA, “the courts have become arbiters of what kinds of restrictions the government can impose on religious practice, and what role religion will play in public life.” In fact, the courts seldom restrict themselves to being keepers of religious boundaries. As Sen  observes, comparing India and the United States, “the line between interpretation of law and legislation often gets blurred in Supreme Court rulings. … This has meant that the Court … actively intervenes and shapes public discourse. Indeed, as early as the 1970s, Marc Galanter clearly pointed out two possible ways in which the law may exercise its control over religion, which he called “the mode of limitation” and “the mode of intervention”:

Answer 2

‘Many a times, the government does not strictly follow the policy of non-interference with religious matters and practice.' The Indian State does not interfere in the religious beliefs and practices of individuals and thus keeps away from the religious affairs of the citizens.

• When someone tries to disturb social harmony of the country or state in the name of religion then the government has the right to intervene.
• This is an example of a balancing act between non-interference in religious beliefs and maintaining social harmony.
• For example; there are many instances when the Hindus insist on taking out the Ram Navami procession through Muslim dominated areas.
• Similarly, the Muslims may also insist on taking out the Muharram procession through Hindu dominated areas.
• In such a case, the administration has to assess the situation so that social harmony can be maintained.

So, these are the instances where the government does not strictly follow the policy of non-interference with religious matters and practice.

#SPJ3