As a judgment it is quite outstanding. In the case of the appointment of a priest in a temple in Kerala, the Supreme Court has ruled that even a non-Brahmin may perform religious rites or be a temple priest. The only condition that the ruling imposes is a knowledge of the necessary procedures and rituals. The thrust of social and therefore political change in recent times has been to eradicate traditional differences between castes. There may be questions about the effectuality of the measures being introduced, reservations being one, but the aim and direction of the changes are fairly clear. It is also true that real social change is slow, uneven and riddled with contradictions. But once again, it is not possible to doubt that the spread of education and increasing exposure through social mobility would one day break through the most negative and implacable of traditional divisions and repressions. In this context, the court ruling is in perfect keeping with the changing times. The principle of equality on which the concept of fundamental rights is premised in the Constitution would demand such a decision in any case. It is sad that it has to come so late. Discrimination in any faith is to be condemned, and Hinduism from this point of view is still in very great need of reform.

Yet when all is said and done, there is also great reason for discomfort — not in the ruling itself but in that the Supreme Court should be making it at all. The Constitution speaks of equality, but also of a “secular” republic. There may be arguments about the meaning of secular. It may mean distinct spheres of operation for the state and the “church”, it may mean equality of all religions based on a social ethic of tolerance, it may mean the non-interference of the state in matters of faith, or a combination of all or some of these. That the judiciary must pronounce on the internal practices of a particular religion exposes the bankruptcy of the social forces of change. The moment an arm of the state stretches that far, the notion of a secular state is at risk, even if the move is in favour of reform.

Reform can come effectively only from within a society or a community. A court ruling can provide a point of reference for the future, a case for precedence, but by itself it cannot change social mores, beliefs and customs. At best it can add to the general awareness about equality, fundamental rights and the evils of discrimination. Laws against sati or dowry have by themselves done little to change social realities. The entrenched traditional interests within each social group form a hierarchy of exploitation and repression that cannot be easily dislodged. Therefore the fight can only come from within. A court ruling or a legislation passed in Parliament will inevitably be seen as interference from “without” and encourage traditionalists to dig their heels in further. The failure of progressive forces within social groups results in the attribution of extra powers to arms of the state such as the judiciary. This is not the time when the niceties of religious practice should take up the court’s energy.