The Kerala High Court examined a public interest litigation raising concerns about the continued absence of a comprehensive law in the State to prevent and eradicate inhuman practices carried out in the name of superstition, black magic, witchcraft, and sorcery. The court expressed dissatisfaction over the prolonged delay in translating repeated assurances into concrete legislative action, observing that several years had passed since the issue was first placed before the judiciary. A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and another judge noted that the matter had remained at the stage of discussions, consultations, and committee deliberations without culminating in the enactment of a statute specifically addressing such practices. The court recorded that despite repeated submissions from the State indicating that the issue was under active consideration, there had been no tangible outcome, which prompted the bench to explore whether interim measures could be adopted to address the continuing concerns raised in the petition.
The petition was filed by an organisation engaged in promoting rationalism and scientific thinking, which highlighted incidents of exploitation, violence, and abuse committed against vulnerable individuals under the guise of superstition. The petitioner contended that the absence of a specific legal framework enabled such practices to persist and sought directions for the enactment of a dedicated law to curb them. During the course of proceedings, the State Government informed the court about earlier steps taken, including the formulation of a draft bill aimed at preventing and eradicating inhuman evil practices related to sorcery and black magic. However, it was also placed on record that the Cabinet of Ministers had decided not to proceed with that particular draft, and that further consultations with stakeholders were ongoing to explore alternative approaches. The court noted that this sequence of events had resulted in a situation where, despite recognition of the problem and repeated deliberations, no statutory solution had emerged.
The High Court observed that while it is beyond the constitutional authority of the judiciary to compel the legislature or the executive to enact a particular law, the court is not precluded from examining whether the State has taken reasonable and timely steps to protect citizens from harm. The bench emphasised that the practices complained of in the petition were not matters of mere belief or personal choice, but involved allegations of coercion, exploitation, physical injury, and even loss of life. The court took note of the fact that the State itself had never justified or defended such practices and had consistently stated that it did not endorse them. Against this background, the court considered whether the absence of a dedicated law could be mitigated, at least temporarily, through effective use of existing legal mechanisms.
In addressing the State’s submissions, the court recorded that the Government had relied on several existing laws to contend that criminal acts associated with superstition could already be dealt with. These included provisions of the general criminal law addressing offences such as cheating, assault, grievous hurt, homicide, and wrongful confinement, as well as special enactments regulating objectionable advertisements and harmful medical claims. The State argued that these laws were adequate to prosecute wrongdoing irrespective of the belief system under which the offence was committed. While acknowledging this position, the court observed that the repeated demand for a specific anti-superstition law indicated a perceived gap between the availability of legal provisions and their effective application in cases involving deeply entrenched social practices. The bench noted that the lack of a dedicated institutional mechanism might also contribute to underreporting and inadequate enforcement.
Taking into account the long pendency of the matter and the continuing consultations without a definitive outcome, the High Court suggested that the State consider establishing a special administrative cell as an interim measure. The court indicated that such a cell could function as a dedicated forum for receiving complaints related to black magic, witchcraft, sorcery, and similar practices, and for coordinating action under existing laws. The bench clarified that this suggestion was not intended to interfere with the legislative domain or to pre-empt the enactment of a future statute, but rather to ensure that the State’s stated commitment to curbing harmful practices was reflected in concrete administrative action. The court observed that the creation of such a cell would demonstrate seriousness of purpose and provide an identifiable point of contact for individuals seeking protection or redress.
The High Court linked this concern to the broader constitutional framework, referring to the fundamental duty of citizens to develop scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform. The bench observed that while fundamental duties are not enforceable in the same manner as fundamental rights, they nevertheless inform the interpretation of State responsibility in addressing social practices that undermine human dignity and rational thought. The court noted that acts of violence and exploitation carried out in the name of superstition directly conflict with these constitutional values, and that the State bears an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent such harm. In this context, the court viewed the proposed special cell as a means of aligning administrative action with constitutional principles, even in the absence of specific legislation.
During the hearing, the State’s counsel informed the court that the suggestion regarding the establishment of a special cell would be placed before the Chief Secretary for consideration. The bench recorded this submission and indicated that it would monitor the State’s response in subsequent proceedings. The matter was accordingly posted for further consideration, reflecting the court’s intention to ensure that the issue did not remain indefinitely unresolved. The High Court made it clear that its observations were prompted by the prolonged delay and were aimed at safeguarding individuals from ongoing harm, rather than compelling legislative action beyond constitutional limits.
The judgment also reflected the court’s attempt to strike a balance between judicial restraint and constitutional oversight. While refraining from issuing any direction mandating the enactment of an anti-superstition law, the bench underscored that repeated delays in decision-making could not be ignored when serious allegations of abuse and violence were involved. The court observed that the State’s acknowledgment of the problem, coupled with its decision to abandon an earlier draft law, necessitated a clearer articulation of the path forward. By suggesting an interim administrative measure, the High Court sought to ensure that the absence of new legislation did not result in inaction or indifference at the enforcement level.
Through its observations, the Kerala High Court highlighted the importance of responsive governance in addressing social evils that persist despite legal and educational progress. The court’s emphasis on interim measures underscored the view that protection of life and dignity cannot be deferred indefinitely pending legislative consensus. At the same time, the bench maintained respect for the separation of powers by limiting its role to suggestions and monitoring rather than coercive directions. The proceedings thus reflected a judicial effort to keep the issue alive within constitutional boundaries, ensuring that the concerns raised by the petitioner received sustained attention from the State authorities while the broader question of legislation continued to be deliberated.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.