Deep Dighe & Tulsi Mansingka
The liberties provided by the principle of secularism in France and India are quite distinct from each other. The 1905 law i.e. laicite is a result of hard fought rejection of Catholic Church in the governance of the State and that has been the prevailing norm in France ever since. Additionally, the absolute exercise of freedom of expression linked with laicite has become the basis of the “founding values” in France. On the other hand, in India, secularism has not been implemented in an extreme manner. The provisions relating to secularism as well as Freedom of speech and expression form a part of the gray area of law. Moreover, religion has always been important in the Indian context and a diversity of religious beliefs has prevailed as an intrinsic part of Indian secularism. The recent turn of events in both the jurisdictions raises serious concerns on the value of secularism practiced in the States so far, as they are believed to be encroaching upon the freedom of religion of a particular religious group. The controversial legislations in question are Anti-separatism law and the Citizenship Amendment Act introduced in France and India respectively. The authors try to point out the disconnect between the principle of secularism in these countries and the impugned legislations. Whilst also looking into the possible effects of these laws on the notion of secularism and the interrelationship between both the laws.
Cite as : Dighe D and Mansingka T, “The Comparative Jurisprudence of Secularism in France and India With Reference to the Enactment of Anti-Separatism Law and the CAA” (2021) I DNLU Student Law Journal <https://dnluslj.in/the-comparative-jurisprudence-of-secularism-in-france-and-india-with-reference-to-the-enactment-of-anti-separatism-law-and-the-caa/>
