The Instagram post was:
Allahabad High Court denies student’s plea to wear hijab.”
“‘No proof it is a must for Muslims.’
To which I had commented:
“There is no religious proof that anyone should wear clothes either.”
And my comment didn’t go down well with a minority hater.
Stranger – We don’t live by religion-thats the point old man.
Whatever is deemed essential practice of a religion, determined by court on exclusion principle, its permitted as an exemption if it breaks the law. Like sikh people exempted from wearing helmet while driving two wheeler.
Hijab is deemed inessential and so govt, schools, private firms can make laws restricting it without grounds of violating freedom of religious expression.
Astrologer Kennedi Gopalan – Dear, To-Be-Old Man….You’re missing the point. I never said India is governed by religion. I said the Constitution itself recognises the right to swear in the name of God, and judges can take their oath that way. More importantly, your argument assumes that whatever a court declares “inessential” to a religion automatically loses constitutional protection. That is far more complicated than simply saying “we don’t live by religion.” Religious freedom is a constitutional right; the question is where that right ends and other laws begin. And if courts can decide which practices are “essential” and which are not, then religion is clearly not irrelevant to the constitutional question-you have simply handed the judiciary the authority to decide what counts as religious practice.
Stranger – Idk what are you trynna argue but lemme correct you.
If court declares something inessential, it does lose it’s constitutional protection.
Thats the whole point.
Astrologer Kennedi Gopalan – That’s precisely the point you’re getting wrong. A court declaring a practice “inessential” does not mean the Constitution suddenly stops recognising religious freedom altogether. The legal question is whether the particular restriction is constitutionally justified—not whether a judge has declared someone’s faith irrelevant.
If your argument is simply “the court said it is inessential, therefore it has no constitutional protection,” then you’re turning a complex constitutional test into a one-line rule.
And ironically, you’re still relying on the courts to decide what is religiously essential in the first place. So religion may not govern the law, but the law certainly gets involved in deciding what religion is entitled to protect.
And yes, I never started the argument-you started it. I just replied to the post :).
Stranger – Are you intentionally making strawman? Or did you actually not get it.
If court declares something inessential, THAT PRACTICE is not constitutionally protected, ie exempted if other law or rule prohibits it.
Imma not argue man, read on sabrimala and then dogra recently.
Astrologer Kennedi Gopalan – I get your point. I’m challenging the premise, not misunderstanding it. Saying “the court declared it inessential, therefore it isn’t constitutionally protected” is an oversimplification of how Article 25 works. The essential-practices doctrine is one test courts have developed to determine what qualifies for protection; it doesn’t mean every practice a court calls non-essential automatically becomes fair game for any restriction whatsoever. The restriction still has to stand on its own constitutional and legal footing.
So yes, I understand what you’re saying. I’m saying the conclusion you’re drawing from it is too absolute.
Stranger – Ah just checked.
You are one of those insulting hindu gods and defending this stuff
Ik you are already old but grow up?
Astrologer Kennedi Gopalan – If you’ve reached the point where you need to discuss me instead of the argument, I’ll take that as a sign that the argument has run out. I’m perfectly capable of questioning a religious belief, a judicial doctrine, or a government policy without having to hate or defend any religion. If you disagree with what I said, address the argument. My age, my beliefs, or your assumptions about me are irrelevant.
Stranger – keep challenging. I do law not philosophy
Astrologer Kennedi Gopalan – So? I interacted with Ram Jethmalani when you probably were sucking your thumb.
Good bye now.
May God Bless You with wisdom with age.
-Astrologer Kennedi Gopalan,
https://www.askenni.com