The Hinduization of law in India undermines its secular foundations and minority rights, as seen in controversial legislation and judicial decisions influenced by Hindutva ideology.

The Indian legal system, inherited from the British colonial era, was secular and aimed at providing a uniform legal framework for all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliations. However, the legal landscape began to shift with the rise of Hindu nationalist movements. These movements advocate for the integration of Hindu values into public life and the legal system. The Hinduization of law refers to the incorporation of these values into legal principles and practices, which has significant implications for Indian nationalism and the constitutional foundation.
Driven by the concept of Hindutva, the Hinduization of law in India has grown to be a crucial and contentious subject impacting the political, legal, and social framework of the country. The goal of the incumbent Indian government is to incorporate extremist Hindu ideals and values into the judicial system as well as other facets of public life. As a result, India's pluralistic character and constitutional framework face significant challenges during this transition. This article highlights the constitutional issues raised by the Hinduization of law and its effects on minority communities in India. It focuses on several major and related cases, as well as notorious Hindutva rulings, to demonstrate how the country's courts have legitimized an ideology that is both bigoted and jingoistic as a legitimate political tactic.
Strict adherence to Hindu identity became more popular, especially in the 1990s, despite India's secular constitution. From independence onward, riots between different groups occurred, and tensions appeared to increase. Hindutva, a political movement promoting Hindu identity and fundamentalism, rose to prominence during this period.
Ironically, the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the rights to declare, practice, and propagate faith, subject to public order, morality, and health under Article 25. Moreover, Article 26 holds that every religious group, or any part of it, is granted the authority to create and uphold religious institutions, as well as the ability to oversee its own religious affairs. It is evident from these two constitutional provisions that there is a right to religious freedom. 

Driven by the concept of Hindutva, the Hinduization of law in India has grown to be a crucial and contentious subject impacting the political, legal, and social framework of the country. The goal of the incumbent Indian government is to incorporate extremist Hindu ideals and values into the judicial system as well as other facets of public life..

However, despite the constitutional provisions that safeguard the rights of minorities, recent developments indicate the alarming increase in anti-minority activities in India. For example, incidents that occurred in January 2017 are one of the obvious signs of the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP’s) affiliation with extremist Hindutva ideology. Yogi Adityanath, an extremist Hindu militant, was then chosen by the BJP to serve as the governor of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in India and the location of the remnants of the Babri Masjid. Yogi Adityanath continued to engage in a number of illegitimate initiatives, such as campaigns to protect cows in public, opposition to Hindu-Muslim unions, and forced conversions of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism in the form of Ghar Wapsi. Adityanath has a long history of inciting violence against Muslim populations. The BJP's intentions to depart from the nation’s secular foundations are indicated by the radical laws being passed in India. It also implies that the party is implicitly endorsing violent tactics targeted at minority communities.
Indian leadership has failed to upheld the values of equality and secularism, as well as legal protection for religious minorities, owing to the advent of Hindutva ideology. Hindutva promotes an image of India that is based on Hindu religious and cultural principles. The secular values contained in the Indian Constitution stand in stark contrast to this philosophy. Hindutva-affiliated groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP have been advocating for the incorporation of Hindu principles into the legal system.
Citizenship Amendment Act
Hinduism and scriptural authority are analyzed by various international scholars who posit that extremist Hindu traditions and values interact with contemporary Indian legislation. They argue that although historically important, Hindu legal customs can run counter to the secular values ingrained in modern legal systems. The goal of Hindutva advocacy is to resurrect Hindu principles within the legal system. One example of this change is the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which provides a path to citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries. Opponents contend that by establishing a framework of discrimination against Muslims, this law weakens the secular basis of Indian citizenship, in line with Fuller's remarks regarding the influence of scriptural authority on legislative laws.

The Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the rights to declare, practice, and propagate faith, subject to public order, morality, and health under Article 25.

The CAA, which was passed by the Modi administration under the pretense that it had nothing to do with religion, was intended to support Hindu nationalism. India approved the CAA in 2019. For non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India illegally prior to 2015, it offered a route to citizenship.  The bill is in line with Modi's vision of India as a country that gives priority to its majority Hindu population over other religious minorities, particularly the Muslims. In 2019, Modi emphasized welcoming Hindu immigrants at the marginalization of Muslims from Bangladesh, especially those from Assam. These processes demonstrate how the BJP is using illegal means politically in order to engineer demographics.
The legal system's Hinduization affects minority communities deeply. For instance, the Muslim minority has voiced worries about how policies that are thought to benefit Hindus are eroding their liberties and rights. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) program in Assam, which was designed to discover undocumented immigrants, disproportionately impacted the Muslim community, causing fear and accusations of bias.
Constitutional Dilemmas
Given that the Indian Constitution is based on the ideas of secularism, equality, and individual rights, the incorporation of Hindu values into the legal system raises a number of constitutional issues. These fundamental ideas are directly threatened by the Hinduization movement.
Uniform Civil Code
The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws for citizens that apply to all citizens equally, regardless of their religion. This will give preference to Hindu religious customs and practices over those of other faiths and will impose Hindu ideals on all communities, weakening the personal law systems of minorities. The Indian secularism framework faces critical scrutiny in light of recent legal reforms that illustrate the tensions between uniformity and religious pluralism. A notable critique arises from a law that, while aimed at reforming personal laws, also reveals inconsistencies in the application of secular principles. For instance, the law bans polygamy, a practice permissible under Muslim personal laws, while uniformly enforcing minimum marriage ages for Hindus and secular communities, but leaving Muslim laws unaddressed.
This selective approach highlights a departure from true secularism, which ideally should offer equal treatment across all religious communities. Additionally, the law's prohibition of consanguineous marriages, accepted in various communities, and its attempt to regulate personal relationships, including stringent measures like mandatory reporting and penalties, underscore a broader concern about governmental overreach into personal and familial spheres. These reforms suggest a troubling imposition of majoritarian norms over minority practices. Such selective enforcement potentially undermines the secular ethos intended to respect and accommodate India's diverse cultural and religious practices.

Yogi Adityanath continued to engage in a number of illegitimate initiatives, such as campaigns to protect cows in public, opposition to Hindu-Muslim unions, and forced conversions of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism in the form of Ghar Wapsi.

Case Study: The Ayodhya Dispute
The Ayodhya dispute is a landmark case that highlights the intersection of Hindu nationalism and law. The dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Uttar Pradesh, which was demolished by Hindu activists in 1992, led to significant legal and political upheaval. In 2019, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the construction of a Ram Temple on the disputed site, with the judgment being perceived as a victory for Hindu nationalist sentiments. The court's decision has been criticized for potentially prioritizing religious sentiments over secular principles. Critics argue that this judgment could pave the way for further Hinduization of legal and political frameworks, impacting the secular ethos of the Indian Constitution.
Hindutva Verdicts: Undermining Secular Values
The Hindutva judgments exemplify a troubling shift away from secularism in Indian politics and law, vividly illustrated by the 1994 Hindutva cases. During the 1990 Maharashtra State Assembly elections, candidates from Hindu nationalist parties like the BJP and Shiv Sena made inflammatory speeches that exacerbated communal tensions, challenging the secular framework of the Indian Constitution. While Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, this right is subject to limitations under Article 19 (2) related to decency, morality, and public order. 
Additionally, the Representation of People Act, 1951, specifically Section 123 (subsections 3 and 3A), deems the use of religion in electoral campaigns as a 'corrupt practice.' Despite these provisions, the speeches made by figures such as Bal Thackeray, which openly declared the elections as a fight solely for Hindu votes and denigrated Muslims, were not adequately scrutinized under these legal frameworks. Thackeray's rhetoric, which explicitly stated that India belonged solely to Hindus and dismissed the significance of Muslim votes, clearly breached the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and violated constitutional principles intended to ensure equal respect for all religions. The ensuing legal battles highlighted the judiciary’s struggle to uphold secularism amidst rising communalism, exposing a critical vulnerability in the enforcement of secular principles when confronted with majoritarian ideologies. This case underscores the profound challenges posed by Hindutva to India's secular fabric, revealing how political rhetoric and legal interpretations can impact the constitutional commitment to pluralism and equality.

The dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Uttar Pradesh, which was demolished by Hindu activists in 1992, led to significant legal and political upheaval. In 2019, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the construction of a Ram Temple on the disputed site, with the judgment being perceived as a victory for Hindu nationalist sentiments.

Restrictions on Religious Freedom
The 1977 Supreme Court judgment in Reverend Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the Freedom of Religion Acts in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa represents a contentious intersection of judicial interpretation, religious freedom, and political dynamics in India. Enacted in 1967, these Acts were designed to curb what was perceived as fraudulent conversions of Hindu individuals to Christianity. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold these Acts was controversial and has been critiqued for several reasons.
Although the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to propagate one’s faith, the Court's decision effectively subordinated this right to state interests, thereby limiting the scope of religious freedom. This ruling stands in stark contrast to the broader interpretations of Hinduism seen in cases like the Satsang case or the Hindutva judgments, where expansive definitions of Hinduism were employed. By not extending similar protections to Christianity, the Court's approach appeared prejudiced, undermining the principle of equal treatment under the law for all religions. The restrictive measures imposed on conversion activities effectively curtailed the ability of Christian communities to engage in religious propagation, thereby infringing upon the rights of individuals to freely choose and practice their religion. This discriminatory stance highlights a troubling inconsistency in the application of fundamental rights, particularly in the context of minority religions.
The timing of the judgment also coincided with the rise of Hindu nationalist politics and the BJP’s growing influence. The judiciary's alignment with state autonomy in this case can be seen as part of a broader trend of judicial and political realignment during this period. The Court’s decision to support state governments that were opposed to the central government and sympathetic to opposition parties reflects a complex interplay between judicial decisions and political dynamics. This alignment facilitated the BJP’s rise and mirrored the judicial trends of the time, which were marked by a shift towards preserving federal differences and supporting opposition parties.
The Hinduization of law threatens the secular and democratic foundations of India. Embedding Hindu values into legal and public frameworks risks diminishing the pluralistic nature of Indian democracy, potentially leading to increased polarization and conflict among religious communities and undermining social cohesion.

The writer has recently been called to the bar of England and Wales at the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. She holds a Master of Laws (LLM) from BPP University London, where she deepened her expertise in critical areas of legal practice.