Supreme Court’s Assertion on Superstitious Practices Jurisdiction

In 2024, a Supreme Court bench asserted its jurisdiction to adjudicate on superstitious practices, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Court to pass any decree necessary for doing complete justice. The Centre, however, disagrees with this judicial activism, maintaining that regulation of such social practices falls within the legislative and executive domain, governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and state-specific anti-superstition laws. This judicial-executive divergence highlights a constitutional tension between the Supreme Court’s expansive remedial powers and the Centre’s prerogative over law-making and enforcement.

Constitutional and Legal Framework Governing Superstitious Practices

The Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 allows it to issue decrees for complete justice, even in areas lacking explicit legislation. However, regulation of superstitious practices primarily involves criminal law provisions such as Section 295A of the IPC, 1860 (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and state laws like the Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017. The Centre’s Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLJ) oversees framing laws, but no unified central legislation on superstition exists, creating reliance on fragmented state laws.

• Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include freedom from harmful superstitious practices.
• Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (now struck down but historically relevant) was used to curb online propagation of superstitions.
• State anti-superstition laws vary widely in definitions, enforcement, and penalties, leading to inconsistent judicial outcomes.
• The Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai endorsed judicial activism in social reform, setting precedent for the 2024 bench’s intervention.

Economic Dimensions of Superstition in India

Superstition-related practices constitute a significant informal economy in India, estimated at ₹15,000 crore annually according to the FICCI 2023 report. This sector grows at an 8% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), impacting formal sectors like healthcare and social welfare by diverting resources and perpetuating harmful practices. The government allocates ₹50 crore under the Ministry of AYUSH for awareness campaigns against such practices in the Union Budget 2023-24.

• Informal superstition-based services include rituals, black magic, and faith healing.
• Government expenditure on public awareness remains limited compared to the sector’s economic size.
• Superstition-related economic activities often escape regulation, complicating policy interventions.

Institutional Roles and Enforcement Challenges

The Supreme Court acts as the apex adjudicator on constitutional and fundamental rights issues, including social practices. The Ministry of Law and Justice frames relevant legislation, while the Ministry of AYUSH promotes traditional medicine and awareness against harmful superstitions. State governments enact and enforce anti-superstition laws, exemplified by Karnataka’s 2017 Act. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) monitors violations arising from superstitious practices such as witch-hunting.

• State enforcement varies; Karnataka reports 350 convictions under its 2017 Act till 2023.
• NCRB 2022 data shows over 1,200 superstition-related cases nationwide, indicating persistent social challenges.
• Fragmented laws and enforcement gaps hinder uniform protection of fundamental rights.

Comparative Analysis: India and United Kingdom

Policy Gap: Absence of Unified Central Legislation

The lack of a comprehensive central law on superstitious practices results in inconsistent definitions, enforcement standards, and judicial interpretations across states. This fragmentation complicates the Supreme Court’s efforts to deliver uniform justice and undermines coordinated social reform. The Centre’s reluctance to legislate on this sensitive social issue leaves states to act unevenly, perpetuating legal uncertainty and enforcement challenges.

• Varied state laws create jurisdictional confusion and enforcement disparities.
• Judicial activism attempts to fill legislative void but faces executive resistance.
• Absence of clear central policy limits resource allocation and nationwide awareness campaigns.

Significance and Way Forward

• Recognize the Supreme Court’s role under Article 142 in protecting fundamental rights from harmful superstitions while respecting legislative competence.
• Formulate a uniform central legislation defining and penalizing harmful superstitious practices, harmonizing with existing state laws.
• Enhance coordination between Centre and states for enforcement and awareness, leveraging Ministry of AYUSH’s outreach.
• Use data-driven approaches to monitor superstition-related crimes and economic impact for targeted interventions.
• Encourage judicial restraint to avoid overreach while ensuring protection of vulnerable groups through clear legal frameworks.

Jharkhand & JPSC Relevance

• JPSC Paper: Paper 2 (Polity and Governance) – Judicial activism and legislative competence
• Jharkhand Angle: Incidents of witch-hunting and superstition-related violence reported in tribal districts highlight local enforcement challenges.
• Mains Pointer: Frame answers by linking constitutional provisions with state-level realities, emphasizing the need for uniform laws and judicial-executive coordination.