Abstract
While judges are supposed to be impartial, judges, too, are human beings carrying with them their beliefs, including potentially their religious convictions, which may, in turn, influence their decisions. Legal ethics require that judges keep their decision-making free from the influences of any religious bias. The possible infusion of a religious value system into the creation or application of law poses questions relevant to fairness and objectivity. Cases like the Sabarimala case and Rev. Stainislaus’s case demonstrate the conflict between religion and law. Whereas the influence of religious values can greatly enrich moral argumentation, the same must never supersede constitutionalism or equality and justice. Maintaining secularism ensures the purity of the law, protects individual citizenry, and nurtures public confidence in the judicial system. A careful balance must be struck to ensure a resolution between personal faith and professional obligations.
Introduction
A while back, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to his home for a Ganpati Puja. This move sparked a lot of controversies—some saw it as a simple personal gesture, while others questioned whether it blurred the lines between faith and judicial impartiality. It’s a reminder that even those at the highest levels of the legal system aren’t separate from their personal beliefs. But where do we draw the line? Can a judge’s religious life ever be completely separate from their role on the bench?
Justice is supposed to be fair and unbiased so that everyone, regardless of background, gets a chance. But, at the end of the day, judges and advocates are humans too—they carry their own beliefs, values, and life experiences with them into the courtroom. Among these, religious faith can be a very personal affair, deeply affecting their worldview. Questions arise. Is it possible for anyone to keep their faith segregated from their work-related responsibilities? If not, what happens when faith enters into the legal consideration? The balancing act between belief and ethics is a balancing act, and it continues to define legal orders around the world.
Impact Of Religious Bias On Judicial Decision-Making
The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, where judges establish precedents that influence future legal interpretations,[1] making it essential to understand the factors that shape judicial reasoning. The judges are typically expected to approach each case with impartiality, applying rational and reasoned analysis but the very discretion required in judicial reasoning opens the door to potential biases.[2]
One of the particular concerns is the influence of personal belief systems on judicial decision-making. Judges, being human, are shaped by their religious and cultural backgrounds. Religion is an integral characteristic which makes it impossible to eliminate the role of faith without encroaching the judges’ own religious freedoms.[3] This bias can exist in various ways, such as through cognitive shortcuts like heuristics or confirmation bias, and inadvertently affect the interpretation of law, evidences and the weighing of arguments.[4]
It’s important to set clear boundaries on how religious values are used in judicial decision-making. This includes understanding and examining the theological and historical roots that shaped them, where these values come from, and considering how they fit into the contemporary world.[5] A religious principle that made sense centuries ago might need to be re-evaluated in its contemporary context. For example, In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the apex court prioritized modern values of gender justice over outdated customs, the judgment ensured that the customary practices do not perpetuate discrimination by prohibiting the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple.[6]
Is It Possible For Judges To Keep Their Faith Segregated From Their Work-Related Responsibilities?
Personal beliefs are essential aspects of identity, yet the integration of religious beliefs in judicial decision-making could compromise its objectivity and fairness, making it difficult for justice to be served. Judges should interpret and apply laws based on legal principles and evidence, as well as not letting their personal religious beliefs color their decisions. This ensures that all concerned parties get consideration without bias, hence helping to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. According to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence his or her conduct or judgment while performing the duties of office.[7]
The degree to which personal religious beliefs enter into the judiciary varies according to differing systems and approaches with respect to their perceived duty to maintain impartiality. In the United States, this respect for judicial impartiality is extended by the Constitution, which requires judges to decide according to law and to the exclusion of all extraneous influences. Judges stress the need for even-handed application of the law, regardless of personal beliefs.[8] Just like that, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct as internationally adopted declare the necessity of judges with respect to all their duties without any bias or prejudice, ensuring that personal beliefs never intrude upon judicial decisions.[9]
The independence of the judiciary is constitutionally guaranteed; courts must act impartially, with the judiciary applying its mind to facts and law, unfettered by any restrictions or undue influences. This principle is articulated in the United Nations document known as the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.[10]
Do Legal Or Ethical Standards That Restrict Judges From Incorporating Religious Values In Their Decision-Making ‘Dehumanize’ Religiously Devout Judges By Forcing Them To Disregard Their Faith’s Role In Shaping Moral Understanding?[11]
The institutional insistence on purely secular legal reasoning forces judgeses who are deeply religious to engage in a self-censorship that can be seen as “dehumanizing”. In practice, legal and ethical standards require judges to compartmentalize their personal faith from their judicial reasoning. This separation particularly means that even if a judge’s religious convictions offer a morally grounded perspective on complex issues, they must be omitted or downplayed in written opinions so as not to appear biased or to violate the neutrality expected of judicial decision-making.[12]
This self-censorship can make the devout judge to disregard the integral role that religious values play in shaping moral understanding. The judge is reduced to a mode of reasoning that excludes an essential part of who they are by forcing them to behave more like a “disembodied legal technician” than a full moral.[13] By insisting on a narrow or secular justification for decisions, the judicial system not only risks degrading the judge’s moral depth but also essentially treats the judge’s religious identity as illegitimate.
In this way, legal and ethical restrictions can force religiously devout judges to suppress a core aspect of their identity. Their faith can develop their understanding of justice, empathy, and the prevalent human condition which is rendered invisible in the public, legal forum. While the goal of such standards is to preserve impartiality and the separation of religion and state, they can strip away the personal and humane elements that contribute to a compassionate judicial decision-making process.[14]
Faith Vs. Duty: Ensuring Judicial Impartiality
Public officials are enjoined to be fair, to be kind, and never discriminate against any group. This means that they must overcome their personal beliefs and practice objectivity on the duties required of them by their profession. For example, the Constitution of India grants freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate a religion, but that right is subject to public order, morality, and health. This implies that even if individuals are allowed to maintain personal beliefs, they must act within the dictates of the Constitution in their professional duties without infringing upon the rights of others.[15]
However, they are more complicated, as the genuine challenge is finding a way to balance personal faith with the duty to fulfill a mandate of secular law. Although faith guides a person’s sense of right and wrong, it must not interfere with making fair and reasoned legal decisions. All along the earth, there have been such cases that question the impartiality of courts: where the religious views of a judge or a lawyer have conferred themselves upon their respective legal reasoning, creating arguments about whether or not the justice is really impartial.[16] The main aim must be to preserve justice that is fair in nature to make people have faith in the legal system to treat everyone equally.
The very independence of the judiciary rests on acting impartially and fairly on the law without any personal considerations. In the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, the question was addressed of the collision between the rights in religious practices and the public order. The Court observed that the Constitution provides the guarantee of freedom of religion, but this freedom has limitations-by public order, morality, and health-with primacy given to social interests over personal beliefs.[17]
Can The Open Use Of Religious Values As A Source Of Moral Knowledge In Judicial Decision Making Enrich The Decision Making Process And Benefit The Public?
Biases of religions in judicial decisions could stamp a compromise on the secularism. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld anti-conversion laws, opening up the possibility that the decision was made more on the standpoint of religious majoritarianism than purely constitutional principles.[18] Additionally, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Court invalidated hypocritical religious conversions for the sake of marriage. While the judgment reinforced the legal sanctity, some critics claimed that the decision has been targeted at certain communities, showing just a part of the complex nexus of religion and judgment.[19]
In recent times much has been written about the relevance of the Manusmriti in contemporary law and justice. The Manusmriti, also called Manava-Dharmashastra or the Laws of Manu, is one of the main ancient texts of Hinduism that set out laws and codes of conduct. Traditionally, it is said to be written by the sage Manu and is one of the most authoritative Dharmaśāstras in Hinduism. The text treats a variety of subjects in human life-such as duties, rights, laws, conduct, and virtue-aiming at being a complete guide concerning dharma (righteousness or duty in broad terms). Scholars have dated the received text to the period around 100 CE.[20]
Critics argue that its many provisions are irrelevant to present-day standards of equality and human rights. For instance, this text mandates different duties and privileges based on caste and gender, directly contradictory to modern egalitarianism. So the Manusmriti is of great historical interest but lacks direct application in today’s legal system and its subject matter will generally seem unsuited to contemporary legal and ethical standards.[21]
This Manusmriti has been questioned regarding its clear stamp on a hierarchical social order based on caste and gender: the orders and duties prescribed for different varnas (castes) and a structure that subordinates women. Such prescriptions are sources of social discrimination and uphold structured inequalities. These aspects raise significant ethical questions, because they are completely against the principles of social justice, equality, and individual rights which are the underpinning of modern judicial ethics. The Manusmriti’s inheritance of caste-based and gender-based biases is now considered to be completely contrary to the ethical imperatives of modern society.[22]
The open use of religious values as a source of moral knowledge in judicial decision-making can enhance the process and benefit the public, provided it is carefully balanced with the constitutional principles. It is true that religious traditions offer centuries of ethical reflection and are capable of informing us about some of the complex moral dilemmas, especially in areas where the law is ambiguous or vague. However, their use must not supplant legal standards or privilege dominant religious perspectives over minority rights. By setting clear rules for when judges can consider religious values without letting those values overshadow the law, courts can use various ethical ideas to make decisions while staying fair and trustworthy. If religious values are used carefully, they can actually help judges reach fairer outcomes.
Conclusion
A judiciary fair and unbiased is of very crucial import to the integrity of the legal system. Judges would be under obligation to interpret laws without bias to personal values and influences. This promotes objectivity, where each person is equal under the law, thereby strengthening public confidence in the entire judicial process. According to the Bolch Judicial Institute, independence is integral to justice and impartiality, which is exactly what the Framers envisioned in their conception of an insulated federal court to bias and partisanship and intimidation.
Secularism is foundational in establishing the rule of law and inclusive law-making. Secularism promotes neutrality and impartiality concerning different religions and beliefs and allows the enactment and enforcement of laws free from religious interference so that individual rights and freedom of all are duly protected. By doing so, it promotes equality before the law and lends increased legitimacy to legal institutions. In line with what was summarized by Humanists International, neutrality and impartiality between religions and beliefs benefit human-rights concerns for the sake of individual dignity and freedoms.
[1]Tvisha Shroff, The Demand-Side of the Rule of Law: India’s Experience with Eminent Domain Law Reform, 16 Socio Legal Rev. 34, 35 (2020).
[2] Shawn C. Marsh & Diane C. Marsh, Being Explicit About Implicit Bias Education for the Judiciary, 56 Ct. Rev. 92, 93 (2020).
[3] Robert D. Baird, Traditional Values, Governmental Values, and Religious Conflict in Contemporary India, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 337 (1998).
[4] Cherron Payne, All Cases Matter: Mitigating Bias in the Administrative Law Judiciary, 43 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin.L. Judiciary 1 (2023)
[5] Andre p. Audette & Christopher L. Weaver, Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions, 49 Law & Soc’y Rev. 999 (2015).
[6] Sujit Kumar Biswas & Nivedita Baraily, The Sabarimala Debate: An Analysis of the Judgement of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 13 Indian J.L. & Just. 121 (2022).
[7] Code of Conduct for United States Judges, U.S. Courts (Mar. 12, 2019) https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[8] Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, What Is Judicial Impartiality? Judges Explain How They Apply the Law, U.S. Courts (Sept. 14, 2021) https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2021/09/14/what-judicial-impartiality-judges-explain-how-they-apply-law (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[9] Caroline Mala Corbin, Terrorists Are Always Muslim but Never White: At the Intersection of Critical Race Theory and Propaganda, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 455 (2017).
[10] Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Seventh U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Aug. 26-Sept. 6, 1985, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[11]Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Seventh U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Aug. 26-Sept. 6, 1985, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[12] ibid.
[13] Daniel O. Conkle, Religiously Devout Judges: Issues of Personal Integrity and Public Benefit, 81 Marq. L. Rev. 523 (1998).
[14] ibid.
[15] Aizan Mustafa & Jagteshwar Singh Sohi, Freedom of Religion in India: Current Issues and Supreme Court Acting as Clergy, 2017 BYU L. Rev. 915 (2018),
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3113&context=lawreview (last visited Feb. 23, 2025).
[16] Amanda Spinghall-Rogers, Courting Faith: An Empirical Study of Lawyers Perceptions of the Influence of Religious Beliefs on Judicial Decision-Making (2016) (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of E. Anglia)https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/67758/1/Amanda_Spinghall-Rogers_%284163591%29.pdf.
[17] Ridhima Soin, Manusmriti: A Modern Perspective, 3 Int’l J. Res. Culture Soc’y 37 (2019), https://ijrcs.org/wp-content/uploads/IJRCS201912009.pdf (last visited Feb. 23, 2025).
[18] Wendell L. Griffen, The Case for Religious Values in Judicial Decision-Making, 82 Marq. L. Rev. 1 (1998), The Case For Religious Values In Judicial Decision-Making
[19] John T. Noonah Jr., The Religion of the Justice: Does It Affect Constitutional Decision-Making?, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 761 (2007).
[20] Satarpura Sarkar, ‘Manusmriti’: A Critical Analysis, 8 Int’l J. Humanities & Soc. Sci. Stud. 255 (2022), https://www.ijhsss.com/files/25.-Satarupa-Sarkar.pdf.
[21] Fredson Soares dos Reis da Luz, The Relationship Between Teachers and Students in the Classroom: Communicative Language Teaching Approach and Cooperative Learning Strategy to Improve Learning (M.A. thesis, Bridgewater State Univ. 2015), https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=theses.
[22] Anowar T. & Islam N., Social Status of Dalits and Women: In the Light of Manusmriti, 6 Int’l J. Creative Res. Thoughts (IJCRT) (2018), https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1134141.pdf.
Authors: Anu Bajir Choudhary and Shivansh Aggarwal are first-year B.Com LL.B students at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad.
