In an inspiring and far-reaching observation, Justice V.G. Arun of the Kerala High Court expressed optimism about the future of Indian society, asserting that children who are brought up without being anchored to a specific religion or caste represent the truest hope for the nation's progress. Speaking at an event organized by the Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham—a prominent rationalist and humanist association—the judge emphasized that living a life "without adhering to any religion" is not only compatible with the constitutional ideals of India, but must also be viewed as a virtue that nurtures unity, rationality, and harmonious coexistence.
Justice Arun’s remarks reflected a profound belief in secularism as more than just constitutional text or ritualistic slogan. He conveyed that when children grow up free from inherited identity labels—religion or caste—they are more inclined to develop a mindset rooted in human values rather than communal or sectarian loyalties. He argued that such upbringing fosters critical thinking, reduces discrimination, and empowers individuals to embrace equality and social justice—foundational aims of the democratic project. He invoked the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to underline that choosing to live life unaffiliated with any religion is inherently valid and dignified, and that constitutional protections affirm this choice.
In making his remarks, Justice Arun took care to highlight how caste and religious affiliations often sow seeds of division within society. He cited historical examples where communalism led to violence and tragedy, and pointed out that rigid adherence to caste or religious identities has perpetuated inequality, exclusion, and intolerance. Drawing attention to the communal strife in India's past, he urged that breaking free from such inherited biases begins with nurturing young minds in a secular environment—free from man-made divides.
The judge also noted Kerala’s own contributions in this context. Numerous families in the state have already begun this experiment: a significant number of schoolchildren opt not to mention caste or religion in their admission forms. Their example, according to him, is worth emulating across India. This trend resonates with landmark judgments from the Kerala High Court itself, including decisions that upheld the rights of individuals to rectify religious entries in official documents, or to seek benefits even when they identify as having no religion. Justice Arun argued that such developments are not exceptions, but indications of an emerging zeitgeist where identity is a matter of choice, not fate.
Justice Arun cautioned against the misuse of religious or caste identity for political mobilization or discriminatory practices. He pointed to the pernicious effects of communal politics and caste-based mobilization in recent times. In his view, giving space to children to grow without religious or caste-imposed identities offers a long-term remedy to such divisive tendencies. By encouraging an environment free from inherited labels, society can foster unity based on shared humanity rather than sectarian divides.
Moreover, the judge framed his remarks within the spirit of constitutional morality. He invoked Article 25, which safeguards freedom of conscience and the right to freedom of religion—explicitly protecting not only religious belief but also the freedom to abstain from religion. To deny children the option to remain unaffiliated, or to penalize them for such a decision, would contradict the Constitution’s ethos. These observations also echo decisions by the High Court allowing changes in religion entries in school records or birth certificates, where the Court affirmed that someone cannot be "tied down" to their religion of birth.
The procedural implications of Justice Arun’s views are subtle but meaningful. They signal judicial recognition that formal declarations of "no religion" or "no caste" are not anomalies or administrative complications, but legitimate expressions of personal identity. They deserve respectful acceptance and legal protection. The judge urged government departments, schools, colleges, and courts to treat such declarations with the same seriousness as any other identity marker—and to refrain from subjecting them to undue scrutiny or prejudice.
Looking beyond individual identity, Justice Arun recast these observations as part of a larger social philosophy. He envisioned a future where citizens choose ethical and moral values over sectarian affiliation; where children are encouraged to question, explore, and decide for themselves rather than accepting handed-down doctrines. In his view, exposing children to multiple philosophies, encouraging them to nurture empathy, and freeing them from imposed identities will cultivate a generation equipped for rational and compassionate leadership.
Justice Arun also addressed critics who might see non-religious upbringing as an assault on traditions. He explained that secularism is not oppositional to religion; rather, it creates space for all belief systems, including non-belief. The goal is coexistence—allowing individuals to embrace or reject religion in accordance with their conscience. In this vision, children who grow up without burden of inherited identities remain open to plural perspectives—religious, secular, or spiritual—without prejudice or hierarchy.
By emphasizing the constitutional right to existential choice, Justice Arun underscored that secular identity is not a negation of individual belief, but a shield against imposed discrimination. In his words, teaching children that they are not defined by religion or caste empowers them to claim shared citizenship and equal rights, thereby reaffirming the democratic promise.
In conclusion, Justice V.G. Arun’s reflections on non-religious upbringing resonate deeply with India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and equality. His vision—of children unfettered by inherited identities—offers a compelling roadmap: one where personal conviction and critical thinking replace communal inheritance, contributing to a more inclusive, equitable, and peaceful society. His words represent a judicial endorsement of a future where identity is a matter of choice; where unity does not require uniformity; and where constitutional morality underwrites human dignity over communal division.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.