S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate & Member, Karnataka State Bar Council. Bengaluru.
The recent order of the Karnataka High Court is sought to be sensationalised and criticised for the reasons which are completely unacceptable.
In the order, the division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil referred couples whose marriage in trouble for mediation through Shri Abhinava Gavisiddeshwara Swamiji of Shri Gavisiddeshwara Mutt, Koppal, Karnataka.
The order is criticised on social media platforms and blogs alleging that the order “blurs secular boundaries” and such religious endorsement is a peril in constitutional courts.
At the outset, those who are criticising lack knowledge about the historical significance of religious mutts and swamijis acting as non-judicial mediators in Karnataka.
With permission, I quote from the book “Iterations of Law: Legal Histories from India” by Aparna Balachandran, Rashmi Pant, and Bhavani Raman. The learned authors say;
“The increasing attraction of non-state legal institutions as courts of appeal for a quick and summary justice bears scrutiny. How have sectarian religious institutions, which formerly patrolled the boundaries of caste and gender, been adapted in the present to exert an influence far beyond the specific circle of adherents to offer the possibility of justice to a wide range of groups and causes? The matha court at Sirigere, Karnataka, is a far cry from its late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century predecessor, both in its performance of the law, and in its ambitious reach…
There is a pronounced visibility of the Lingayat mathas in contemporary Karnataka as the meaning and spread of their engagements change. Among the most important is the Taralabalu Jagadguru Brihan Matha at Sirigere, a small village in Chitradurga taluk, Karnataka. A visible sign of the changing relation between the matha and its adherents on the one hand and the matha and state on the other is the Saddharma Nyaya Peetha (Seat of Justice) of the current Jagadguru of the Sirigere matha, Shivamurthy Shivacharya Swamiji. Throughout the twentieth century, and at least since the 1940s—for which records are available—the Sirigere swamijis have adjudicated cases pertaining to caste transgressions of the matha’s adherents (and in some cases, other castes from the areas around the mula [or root] matha). They dealt not only with questions relating to inter-dining, sexuality, and marks and modes of respect, but also with more ‘secular’ issues of property disputes and family tangles. Since 2000, the court has taken a more formal shape to become an increasingly popular site for conciliation/adjudication on a wide range of problems and issues.
…. Principally, there were three kinds of cases with which the Lingayat mathas (Muruga matha of Chitradurga and Taralabalu matha at Sirigere) dealt: (a) disputes relating to infringements of caste honour, notably chappal beating, slander, and other forms of contempt by members of the same or two different castes; (b) those that referred to questions of sexuality, notably the sexuality of widows, and also cases of adultery, by both men and women; and finally, (c) cases related to the division of property..”
The learned authors give statistics of the disputes resolved by the mutt. The dispute resolution at Shri. Dharmasthala has been equally efficacious.
In his article “The Role of Religious Institutions for Conflict Management: Experience of National Conflict Management: Experience of National Council of Churches of Kenya” Mr. Aemro Tenaw, Lecturer at Debre Markos University, Ethiopia speaks about the role of religious institutions in conflict management. Under the heading RELIGION AS SOURCE OF CONFLICT AND PEACE BUILDING IN AFRICA, the learned author explains how “religion can both encourage conflict and build peace, reflecting growing evidence that religious forces can play a constructive role in helping to resolve conflicts. Brief case studies of religious peacemakers – from Mozambique, Nigeria– demonstrate attempts, characteristically partially successful, to reconcile previously warring communities, thereby helping to achieve greater social cohesion, and providing a crucial foundation for progress in enhancing human development Jeffrey (Haynes,2009). So, in one hand as cases described illustrate the creative contributions that religion can make to peace in places like Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Macedonia, Nigeria, and Sudan. As these cases illustrate, religious approaches to peacemaking do not provide a panacea, but can complement secular peacemaking productively (Smock. 2006). In addition, in many settings religious organizations and their leaders, due to the trust and moral authority they hold from broad-based constituencies, are uniquely positioned to facilitate post conflict reconstruction and reconciliation efforts (USID, 2009). For instance, in West Africa, in response to civil wars in Sierra Leone and Guinea, and ongoing violence in Liberia, interreligious councils—composed of representatives from Muslim, Protestant, and Catholic groups—provided leadership and resources to rebuild communities, and advocated for refugees. These networks attempt to maintain requisites for building peace across national and regional boundaries.”
In their paper “Experiences of Dispute Resolution in Non-Court Forums: Justice Sans Rule of Law” learned authors Shruti Vidyasagar and Shruthi Naik extensively discuss the role of non-court forums in dispute resolution. “Dispute resolution in India involves several actors and institutions – not only courts but also various other forums for alternative means of dispute resolution. While the judiciary is the sole authority responsible for redressing rights’ violations, the problems plaguing the judicial system contribute significantly to parties opting to settle disputes out of court” the learned authors argue. They also argue that “the perception of local and customary forums as providing quick, effective, and flexible means of dispute resolution is well-documented, and these traits are even considered desirable.”
The role of religious heads and Swamijis in dispute resolution is a historically proven and accepted factor. It is absolutely necessary to understand such historical factors in State like Karnataka before taking up the misadventure of attacking the court order.
The Indian media’s thirst for ratings has led to a disturbing trend of sensationalizing court cases, compromising the integrity of the judicial process. Similar is with legal blogs and websites. The consequences of bad reporting are easy to perceive. Sensationalized reporting can influence public perception, making it challenging for the judges to perform. By delivering their own verdicts, the media and the websites undermines the authority of the judiciary and the rule of law .
It’s time for the media and the websites to rethink its approach and prioritize responsible reporting over ratings. The public deserves accurate, unbiased information, not sensationalized storytelling.
Daksha Legal 