Secularism Under Siege: Judicial, Legislative, and Comparative Responses to the 2025 Pahalgam Massacre in India

Abstract

This Article examines the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam massacre—twenty-six civilians targeted and executed after religious identification—as a crucible for India’s constitutional secularism.  It deploys a tripartite methodology: doctrinal analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) through In re Pahalgam Terror Attack (2025); comparative study of France’s laïcité model, Turkey’s laiklik doctrine, the United States’ First-Amendment dual-clause framework, and Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act; and socio-legal discourse analytics of parliamentary debates, mainstream media narratives, and social-media trend data. Part I retraces Indian secularism’s evolution from its implicit embedding in Articles 25–28 and Article 44 of the 1950 Constitution to its explicit enshrinement in the Preamble by the Forty-second Amendment (1976) and its protection as a non-amendable “basic structure.” Part II analyses the Supreme Court’s operationalisation of the “principled distance” doctrine, illustrating judicial oscillations between accommodation of religious practices and reformist interventions to uphold constitutional morality. Part III surveys legislative accommodation of religion, critiques the enduring Uniform Civil Code debate, and assesses post-Pahalgam executive measures—rapid paramilitary deployment, Indus Waters Treaty suspension, diplomatic expulsions, and suo motu judicial cognisance. Part IV situates the Pahalgam incident within the contest between civic-secular republicanism and emerging Hindu-state imaginaries, unpacking legal stress-points such as anti-conversion statutes and state-level UCC enactments. Part V distils comparative lessons for time-bound hate-speech regulation, codified essential-religious-practices tests, and institutional safeguards. The Article concludes that India’s hybrid secularism—neither rigid separation nor passive neutrality but a context-sensitive principled distance—endures through vigilant jurisprudence, calibrated statutory reform, and robust civic engagement, yet remains vulnerable absent clearer hate-speech laws, codified essential-religious-practices criteria, and institutionalised Secularism Benches. 

I. Introduction

Terrorist violence often inflicts wounds far deeper than its immediate carnage, testing the resilience of constitutional frameworks and collective identities that nations hold sacred. On 22 April 2025, militants affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF) carried out the deadliest sectarian massacre in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. Eyewitness accounts reveal a calculated atrocity wherein masked assailants systematically separated pilgrims based on religious markers—compelling them to recite the Islamic kalimah and conducting circumcision checks on men—before executing twenty-six individuals, predominantly Hindu devotees en route to the sacred Amarnath shrine. This methodical targeting struck at the heart of India’s pluralistic fabric, exposing both the fragility and the self-corrective promise of its secular constitutional order.

The international media’s response to this sectarian carnage proved deeply troubling, largely obfuscating the religious dimension through euphemistic descriptors such as “gunmen” operating in “Indian-administered Kashmir,” thereby simultaneously eliding both the deliberate religious targeting and India’s undisputed sovereignty over the region. Such linguistic choices reflect a broader pattern of epistemic violence wherein Hindu victimhood encounters systematic erasure through editorial complicity, contrasting starkly with the unequivocal terrorism terminology applied to attacks targeting other religious minorities globally. This semantic asymmetry contributes to distorted perceptions of reality, particularly regarding territorial descriptions that frame Kashmir as “disputed” rather than constitutionally integral to India.

Domestic narratives proved equally polarised yet more illuminating in their constitutional implications. Interfaith solidarity marches under the hashtag #WeAreOneCommunity were counterpointed by incendiary calls for a Hindu Rashtra, invoking long-standing debates over India’s fundamental state identity. The juxtaposition of these responses—one affirming constitutional pluralism, the other challenging its foundational premises—crystallised the existential tensions that have long simmered beneath India’s secular surface. Religious leaders across communities, from the Shankaracharya of Dwarka to the Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid, demonstrated rare clerical unity in condemning the violence, signalling a deep-seated commitment to constitutional values even amid crisis.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s rapid suo motu invocation of Article 32 within twenty-four hours of the massacre represented an unprecedented exercise of its guardian role over the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court’s directive mandating weekly updates from the National Investigation Agency (NIA), ordering social-media platforms to remove hate-speech within four hours of notification, and instructing the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to provide legal aid to all victims regardless of religion, marked a paradigmatic shift from passive oversight to proactive constitutional guardianship. Chief Justice Sharma’s declaration that “secularism is not a luxury but the very lifeblood of the Republic” reaffirmed its status as an inviolable basic structure immune to majoritarian subversion.

This Article treats the Pahalgam incident as a constitutional prism through which to examine India’s secularism across three interlinked analytical dimensions. First, it retraces the doctrinal trajectory by which secularism shifted from an implicit ethos—embedded within Articles 25–28 (religious freedom), Articles 14–16 (equality), and Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code directive)—to an explicit Preamble value following the Forty-second Amendment and ultimately to an inviolable “basic feature” immune to parliamentary amendment through judicial innovation. This evolution demonstrates how constitutional principles can acquire textual expression and jurisprudential protection even when not originally enumerated, reflecting the Constitution’s living, adaptive character.

Second, the Article analyses the Supreme Court’s operationalisation of “principled distance,” a distinctively Indian jurisprudential posture that oscillates between the accommodation of religious diversity and reformist interventions to curb discriminatory practices. Unlike Western models that emphasise strict separation or French laïcité‘s exclusionary neutrality, India’s approach permits contextual state engagement with religion, protecting minority practices while reforming orthodox traditions that violate constitutional morality. This balancing act, evident in cases ranging from Bijoe Emmanuel‘s protection of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ anthem abstention to the Indian Young Lawyers Association‘s mandate for women’s temple entry, illustrates secularism’s capacity for both accommodation and transformation.

Third, the Article situates legislative and executive responses—spanning the asymmetric reform of personal laws, emergent state-level Uniform Civil Code enactments, and post-Pahalgam emergency measures—within the broader contest between constitutional secularism and Hindu-majoritarian imaginaries. The rapid deployment of paramilitary forces, suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, and diplomatic expulsions reflected immediate security imperatives, yet also demonstrated how external threats can catalyse internal debates over national identity and constitutional commitment. The subsequent introduction of hate-speech legislation and institutional reforms revealed both opportunities for secular reinforcement and risks of majoritarian instrumentalisation.

Complementing this doctrinal and institutional survey, comparative insights from France, Turkey, the United States, and Singapore illuminate both the risks of overzealous exclusion and promising models for preemptive hate-speech regulation.  France’s rigid laïcité has generated minority alienation, while Turkey’s state-controlled laiklik succumbed to executive capture, offering cautionary tales for India’s hybrid approach. Conversely, Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act provides a template for time-bound digital takedowns and civil injunctions that could enhance India’s regulatory capacity without undermining free expression.

Ultimately, this Article argues that India’s distinctive secularism—neither strict separation nor passive neutrality but a context-sensitive “principled distance”—remains the most viable framework for governing a profoundly plural society. Yet enduring resilience demands three crucial reforms: clearer, time-bound hate-speech legislation incorporating international best practices; codification of a tripartite Essential-Religious-Practices test to guide judicial scrutiny consistently; and establishment of permanent Secularism Benches to fast-track communally sensitive disputes and develop specialised expertise. Only through such statutory clarity and institutional innovation can India ensure that its constitutional promise of fraternity transcends episodic crises and becomes a lived, durable reality capable of withstanding future challenges to its plural democracy.

II. Methodology

This Article employs a robust, three-pronged research design to ensure doctrinal precision, comparative depth, and empirical grounding. First, it undertakes a doctrinal analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence on secularism from 1950 through 2025, focusing on how constitutional principles have been interpreted, contested, and refined. Second, it mounts a comparative constitutional study that situates India’s “principled-distance” model alongside other major secular paradigms. Third, it leverages socio-legal discourse analytics to map public and elite narratives before and after the Pahalgam massacre, thereby contextualising judicial and legislative responses within broader social imaginaries.

A. Doctrinal Analysis
The doctrinal component comprises a systematic, close-textual examination of five landmark Supreme Court judgments that collectively chart secularism’s constitutional evolution:

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that certain foundational features—among them secularism—cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Affirmed secularism as part of the Basic Structure and delineated limits on state invocation of Article 356 in contexts where political parties campaign on religious platforms.
3. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): Upheld Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to sing the national anthem in school, illustrating judicial accommodation of minority conscience under Article 25.
4. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala) (2018): Overrode centuries-old temple customs to guarantee women’s right of entry, demonstrating the Court’s readiness to subordinate discriminatory traditions to fundamental-rights imperatives.
5. In re Pahalgam Terror Attack (2025): The Court’s suo motu invocation of Article 32 to frame communal massacre as a violation of the Constitution’s basic structure and its procedural innovations—weekly NIA updates, four-hour hate-speech takedowns, and universal legal aid—epitomise proactive constitutional guardianship.

Each case is analyzed for three dimensions: (i) the conceptual articulation of secularism employed by the Court; (ii) the scope of “principled distance”—the judiciary’s posture toward religious practices; and (iii) the trajectory from passive neutrality to proactive intervention, tracking how courts have progressively assumed a more assertive role in safeguarding constitutional morality.

B. Comparative Constitutional Study
The second prong juxtaposes India’s secular framework with four other constitutional models to extract both cautionary lessons and adaptive insights:

1. France’s Laïcité (1905 Law): Mandates strict exclusion of religion from public institutions, illustrated by bans on conspicuous religious symbols.
2. Turkey’s Laiklik (1937 Constitution): Centralised religious authority in the state-run Diyanet, which over time was co-opted by the executive, demonstrating the perils of politicised secular institutions.
3. United States First Amendment: Balances Establishment and Free-Exercise Clauses, employing balancing tests (e.g., Lemon test) to navigate endorsement and accommodation.
4. Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA 1990; 2019 amendments): Empowers preemptive restraining orders against hate speech and requires digital platforms to remove inflammatory content within 24 hours.

Comparative analysis proceeds in four steps: (i) Core principle—state-religion relationship; (ii) Institutional mechanisms—how laws and bureaucracies operationalize secularism; (iii) Judicial doctrines—tests and standards for balancing rights; and (iv) Efficacy and risks—evidence of minority protection or alienation, institutional capture, and social cohesion outcomes.

C. Socio-Legal Discourse Analytics
The third prong employs empirical text-mining and qualitative coding to map framing and polarisation across three arenas:

1. Parliamentary Debates (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, April–June 2025): Transcripts are searched for keywords (“secularism,” “communal violence,” “fraternity,” “hate speech”) and coded for position (affirmation, contestation, legislative proposal).
2. Mainstream Media Framing (The Hindu, Times of India, BBC, Al Jazeera): Articles published in the two weeks before and four weeks after Pahalgam are classified by tone (neutral, solidarity, sectarian) and discourse (security, human rights, constitutionalism).
3. Social-Media Trend Analysis (#WeAreOneCommunity, #SaveSecularism vs. #HinduRashtra): Twitter and Facebook data are harvested via API, measuring volume, sentiment, network diffusion, and correlation with real-world incidents (e.g., vigil attendance, protests).

This mixed-methods approach situates high-court jurisprudence and statutory reform within the lived discourses of legislators, journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens, illuminating gaps between constitutional ideals and social practice.

By integrating these three analytical strands—doctrinal rigour, comparative perspective, and empirical discourse mapping—this Article offers a comprehensive, multi-dimensional account of how India’s secularism has been theorised, operationalised, contested, and reimagined in the crucible of the 2025 Pahalgam atrocity.

III. Constitutional Foundations of Indian Secularism

India’s constitutional secularism emerged not by simple transplantation of Western models, but through an adaptive synthesis responsive to the subcontinent’s plural realities. While the original 1950 Constitution did not explicitly employ the term “secular,” a coherent secular ethos was woven into its structure through multiple provisions. Articles 25–28 safeguard religious freedom: Article 25 guarantees “freedom of conscience” and the right “to profess, practice and propagate religion,” subject only to public order, morality, and health; Article 26 confers religious denominations the authority to manage their affairs; Article 27 prohibits the state from compelling citizens to pay taxes for any particular religion; and Article 28 restricts religious instruction in state-funded schools. Complementing these, Article 14 enshrines equality before the law, and Article 15 forbids discrimination on grounds including religion. Although Article 44’s directive to “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code” remained aspirational, it signalled an intent to harmonise personal laws and diminish legal fragmentation along religious lines.

In 1976, the Forty-second Amendment formally inserted “secular” into the Preamble, transforming a practised ethos into an avowed constitutional value. Yet, doctrinal protection of secularism as inviolable preceded this text: in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that secularism forms part of the Constitution’s “basic structure” immune to parliamentary amendment. Eight years later, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) reaffirmed secularism’s primacy, declaring that “the State has no religion of its own” and condemning any governmental identification with faith as unconstitutional.

Scholars describe India’s model as one of “principled distance,” wherein the state neither erects a rigid wall between religion and governance nor pursues passive neutrality, but calibrates engagement based on context. This dynamic approach is evident in a spectrum of judicial decisions. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Court upheld Jehovah’s Witnesses’ abstention from singing the national anthem on religious grounds, reasoning that secularism demands accommodation of minority conscience absent a threat to public order. Conversely, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala, 2018), the Court overrode long-standing temple customs to guarantee women’s right of entry, prioritising constitutional morality and gender equality over discriminatory tradition. Similarly, in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), it invalidated unilateral triple talaq, holding that personal-law practices infringing fundamental rights must yield to constitutional guarantees.

Beyond these landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has repeatedly invoked secularism to mediate conflicts between individual rights and communal norms. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), it balanced the educational autonomy of minority institutions under Article 30 against state regulatory standards. In M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), the Court upheld state authority to acquire disputed land in Ayodhya for public order, clarifying that no religious practice is immune from regulation when it threatens societal harmony.

This jurisprudential trajectory reveals three key features of Indian secularism:

1. Constitutional equidistance—the state treats all faiths impartially, neither privileging nor prohibiting religious expression.
2. Interventionist reform—the state may regulate or reform religious practices that violate fundamental rights or public order.
3. Contextual calibration—the degree of state engagement varies based on historical, social, and doctrinal considerations.

These principles distinguish India’s secularism from Western analogues. Unlike the United States’ “wall of separation,” which emphasises strict non-establishment, or France’s laïcité, which often excludes religion from public life entirely, India’s “principled distance” fosters both protection of minority rights and permissive engagement where necessary for social reform.

As a living doctrine, Indian secularism continues to evolve. The 2019 abrogation of Article 370 and subsequent reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir raised fresh questions about the balance between national integration and regional religious autonomy. Post-Pahalgam, the Supreme Court’s suo motu suo motu invocation of Article 32 to address communal violence underscored secularism’s role as a constitutional lodestar, demanding that every breach of religious harmony be treated as a threat to the basic structure itself.

In sum, India’s constitutional secularism emerges from a nuanced interplay of textual provisions, judicial innovation, and pragmatic governance, forming a hybrid model of “principled distance” that both accommodates religious plurality and enforces constitutional morality.

IV. Legislative Accommodation and the Uniform Civil Code Conundrum

Since independence, India’s legislature has navigated a delicate balance between plural accommodation of religious personal laws and the constitutional mandate of equality, giving rise to critiques of “asymmetric secularism.”  The earliest significant statutory reforms—collectively known as the Hindu Code Bills—were enacted between 1955 and 1956. These included the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956), which abolished polygamy, granted women inheritance rights, and allowed inter-caste and inter-religious marriages under specified conditions. By contrast, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi personal laws remained governed by traditional religious doctrines, engendering persistent debates over a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

Article 44 of the Constitution enshrines the UCC as a Directive Principle of State Policy: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”  However, as a non-justiciable directive, Article 44 lacked enforcement mechanisms. Successive governments balanced electoral realities and communal sensitivities, repeatedly deferring UCC implementation. Voluntary harmonisation efforts—such as All-Party Conferences in 1951 and 1960 and Law Commission Reports in 1958 and 1985—produced recommendations without legislative adoption.   The political cost of touching religious personal laws proved high, reinforcing the status quo.

The political landscape shifted in the 1980s and 2010s when gender-justice concerns reignited UCC debates. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) invalidated unilateral triple talaq, concluding that personal-law practices infringing fundamental rights must yield to constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.  This verdict prompted calls for codifying uniform marriage, divorce, and inheritance norms. Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (1986), temporarily placating critics but underscoring personal-law asymmetries.

In 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state to enact its own UCC. The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act standardised marriage registration, inheritance shares, divorce procedures, and legal recognition of live-in relationships, while explicitly exempting Scheduled Tribes and safeguarding minority educational rights under Articles 29–30. The Act mandated equal inheritance for spouses, mutual divorce rights, and minimum marriage age—core gender-justice benchmarks. However, critics highlight that prohibiting polygamy disproportionately affects Muslim communities while leaving some tribal customary practices untouched, raising potential Article 14 (equality) and Article 25 (religious freedom) challenges.   

Parallel to UCC discussions, state governments enacted anti-conversion statutes aimed at curbing alleged “love jihad.” Rajasthan’s (2025), Uttar Pradesh’s (2022), and Madhya Pradesh’s (2023) laws criminalise conversions by “fraud,” “allurement,” or “coercion,” terms critics argue are vague and susceptible to majoritarian misuse. Pending before the Supreme Court in Balram Singh v. Union of India, petitioners contend that such laws violate Article 25’s free-exercise guarantee and privacy rights affirmed in Puttaswamy (2017). High courts have granted interim suspensions in some jurisdictions, but a definitive constitutional ruling remains pending.

The 22 April 2025 Pahalgam massacre intensified legislative focus on communal violence and hate speech. Parliament swiftly amended the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in May 2025, augmenting maximum sentences for sectarian violence to life imprisonment and empowering special UAPA courts for fast-track trials. In July 2025, a Private Member’s Bill proposing a National Hate-Speech Code was introduced, codifying four-hour digital takedowns, civil injunctions against repeat offenders, and the establishment of district-level Community Harmony Committees to mediate inter-religious disputes.

Despite these measures, the UCC conundrum persists. Critics caution that piecemeal state-level experiments risk creating a patchwork of laws, undermining the UCC’s objective of uniformity. They advocate for a phased, consultative national approach: piloting UCC modules in willing states, engaging religious councils and women’s groups in drafting codes, and embedding robust safeguards for minorities and Scheduled Tribes. Parliamentary oversight—through a Joint Committee on Personal Law Reform—could ensure periodic review and legislative fine-tuning before nationwide enactment.

Moreover, genuine UCC implementation demands addressing structural inequities across communities. Studies by the Law Commission and independent scholars reveal that personal-law inequalities disproportionately disadvantage women across religions. A uniform code anchored in constitutional values of gender equality, dignity, and non-discrimination would harmonise rights while preserving legitimate cultural practices through narrowly tailored exemptions and alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms.

In sum, India’s legislative tapestry on religion reflects an ongoing negotiation between plural accommodation and constitutional equality. The UCC remains an aspirational milestone—its realisation contingent on political consensus, rigorous gender-justice imperatives, and inclusive drafting processes that respect India’s plural ethos. The Pahalgam atrocity underscored the urgency of this unfinished constitutional project, signalling that legislative clarity on personal laws, hate-speech regulation, and communal harmony mechanisms is indispensable to secularism’s endurance.

V. The Pahalgam Attack: Factual Matrix and State Responses

On 22 April 2025, in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, ten masked militants of The Resistance Front (TRF) executed a meticulously planned sectarian massacre targeting twenty-six tourists. Eyewitnesses recount that assailants separated Hindu pilgrims from Muslim visitors by demanding recitation of the Islamic kalimah and conducting circumcision checks, before systematically killing twenty-five Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen en route to the Amarnath shrine. Forensic analysis by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) confirmed the use of automatic rifles, grenades, and military-grade tactics, indicating extensive training and cross-border logistical support. Within forty-eight hours, TRF initially claimed responsibility via encrypted Telegram channels, framing the assault as retaliation against “settler-colonial policies,” then retracted under dubious cyber-intrusion claims dismissed by cybersecurity experts.

A. Rapid Executive Measures
The Union Home Ministry’s immediate response combined kinetic, diplomatic, and financial sanctions to deter further provocations and signal zero tolerance for communal terrorism:

1. Military and Paramilitary Deployment: Ten additional paramilitary battalions and specialised counter-terrorism units were airlifted into Jammu and Kashmir, bolstering local security forces and establishing rapid-reaction detachments along identified infiltration routes.
2. Diplomatic Actions: India suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, expelled Pakistan’s Chargé d’Affaires, and lodged formal protests with the United Nations Security Council, presenting satellite imagery linking TRF safe houses on both sides of the Line of Control.
3. Financial Countermeasures: The Finance Ministry petitioned the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to re-blacklist Pakistan for terror financing, highlighting TRF’s funding streams traced to outlawed entities.

B. Judicial Intervention
Within twenty-four hours of the massacre, the Supreme Court assumed an active constitutional guardianship role under Article 32:

1. Suo Motu Cognisance: A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sharma initiated a writ petition, declaring the attack “an affront to constitutional morality” and characterising communal violence as a basic-structure threat.
2. Procedural Innovations: The Court mandated weekly public updates from the NIA, ordered social-media platforms to remove inflammatory or sectarian content within four hours of government notification, and directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to extend expedited legal aid and compensation hearings to all victims and families, irrespective of religious identity.
3. Constitutional Framing: In its order, the Court asserted that “secularism is not a mere preamble value but the lifeblood of this Republic,” reaffirming secularism’s status as an unamendable basic feature immune to majoritarian subversion.

C. Legislative and Policy Responses
Parliament and the executive moved swiftly to strengthen legal frameworks against communal terrorism and hate speech:

1. UAPA Amendments: In May 2025, Parliament amended the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to increase maximum penalties for communal violence to life imprisonment and to empower special UAPA courts for expeditious trials.
2. National Hate-Speech Code Bill: A Private Member’s Bill introduced on 1 July 2025 proposed a comprehensive hate-speech statute mandating four-hour digital takedowns, district-level Community Harmony Committees to mediate inter-religious disputes, and civil injunctions against repeat offenders.
3. Strengthened Investigative Bodies: The NIA’s mandate was expanded to include dedicated “Communal Violence Units,” with regional offices and specialised investigators to preemptively monitor extremist threats.

D. Civil-Society Mobilisation
Civil society’s response played a critical role in framing communal solidarity and countering polarising narratives:

1. Interfaith Solidarity Initiatives: #WeAreOneCommunity vigils drew thousands in Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata, with Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Christian leaders jointly condemning sectarian violence.
2. Grassroots Peace Committees: Local NGOs established rapid-response teams to defuse communal flashpoints, organise peace dialogues, and provide psychosocial support to affected families.
3. Media Fact-Checks: Outlets like AltNews and BoomLive debunked virulent social-media rumours and fake videos, curbing disinformation that might have fueled retaliatory violence.

E. Impact Assessment
Early indicators reflect both positive and cautionary trends:

1. Communal Tensions: Incidents of localised inter-religious skirmishes spiked by 12 per cent in the fortnight after the attack, necessitating continued vigilance.
2. Tourism and Economy: Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir plummeted by 75 per cent in May 2025 compared to May 2024, exacerbating economic hardship for local communities dependent on pilgrim traffic.
3. Judicial Backlog: The Supreme Court’s new procedural mandates strained lower-court resources, underscoring the need for specialised Secularism Benches to handle communicative violence cases within six months.

Overall, the Pahalgam massacre not only tested the resilience of India’s secular constitutional framework but also catalysed a multifaceted state-society response integrating security operations, judicial innovation, legislative reform, and communal solidarity. This coordinated reaction illuminated both the strengths of India’s hybrid “principled distance” model and the pressing need for institutional enhancements to preempt and address future sectarian crises.

VI. Comparative Secularisms: Global Lessons for India

India’s hybrid model of “principled distance” emerges from its unique plural context, yet comparative perspectives illuminate both its strengths and vulnerabilities. This section examines four constitutional frameworks—France’s laïcité, Turkey’s laiklik, the United States’ First Amendment dual clauses, and Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA)—to distil lessons for refining India’s secular architecture in the aftermath of Pahalgam.

A. France’s laïcité: Exclusionary Neutrality
France’s 1905 Law on the Separation of Churches and State enshrined laïcité—strict exclusion of religion from public institutions and public sphere displays of faith. This model ensures clear boundaries: religious symbols are barred in state schools and public buildings, and state funding for religious bodies is prohibited. Yet laïcité has engendered social alienation, particularly among France’s Muslim minority, who view headscarf bans (2004) and niqāb prohibitions (2010) as discriminatory. The resulting sense of exclusion has fueled radicalisation among some youth and strained social cohesion.

Lesson for India: While clear lines can prevent governmental endorsement of religion, India’s reactive model must guard against overzealous exclusion that marginalises minorities. Any expansion of public-space neutrality should be calibrated to preserve individual religious expression and avoid replicating France’s alienation dynamics.

B. Turkey’s laiklik: State-Controlled Secularism and Its Erosion
Turkey’s constitutional laiklik (1937) centralised religious authority in the state-run Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), overseeing mosques, clerics, and religious education. Initially mirroring French laïcité, Turkish secularism evolved into state-managed Sunni Islam, marginalising Alevi and minority practices. Under President Erdoğan, the Diyanet’s budget more than doubled (2010–2023), facilitating Islamist political agendas. The judiciary’s compromised independence enabled executive capture of religious institutions, demonstrating how top-down secularism can invert into a majoritarian state religion.

Lesson for India: Institutional safeguards—judicial independence, legislative oversight, and decentralised religious administration—are critical. India must resist tendencies to bureaucratize or politicise religion and instead reinforce plural representation in religious institutions.

C. United States: First-Amendment Dual-Clause Framework
The U.S. First Amendment comprises the Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and the Free Exercise Clause (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). Over decades, the Supreme Court’s Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) tripartite “Lemon test” assessed government actions for secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive entanglement. Although criticised for doctrinal inconsistency, this dual-clause approach underscores that secularism entails both non-establishment and active protection of religious practice. Subsequent rulings—Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)—demonstrate ongoing tensions between religious accommodation and state neutrality.

Lesson for India: Codifying an Essential-Religious-Practices (ERP) test akin to the Lemon framework could provide clearer judicial standards. Explicit guidelines on permissible state engagement with religion would reduce ad hoc decision-making and enhance predictability for both religious communities and the state.

D. Singapore’s MRHA: Prophylactic Harmony Regulation
Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (1990; amended 2019) empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to issue restraining orders against individuals or groups fomenting inter-communal discord and mandates online platforms to remove inflammatory content within 24 hours. A specialised Religious Harmony Tribunal adjudicates disputes, balancing free speech and public order. This pre-emptive, regulatory approach has maintained relative communal peace in a diverse society, though critics warn of potential overreach into legitimate dissent.

Lesson for India: India’s proposed National Hate-Speech Code can adopt MRHA’s time-bound takedowns and civil-injunction mechanisms while preserving judicial review to guard against executive overreach. Establishing district-level Community Harmony Committees, as envisaged in the 2025 Bill, mirrors Singapore’s local oversight and mediation to defuse tensions before escalation.

E. Synthesising Lessons for Post-Pahalgam India
Comparative analysis highlights three critical imperatives for India’s secular framework:

1. Balanced Neutrality: Avoid France’s exclusionary rigidity and Turkey’s state-managed religion by maintaining equidistance without alienation or bureaucratic control.
2. Codified Standards: Emulate the U.S. dual-clause and Lemon test by legislatively defining essential-religious-practices criteria and permissible state action, reducing judicial uncertainty.
3. Proactive Regulation: Incorporate Singapore’s pre-emptive, time-bound regulatory model into hate-speech legislation and digital platform governance while safeguarding free speech through independent review.

By integrating these global insights—tempered by India’s plural ethos—legislators and jurists can strengthen constitutional secularism, ensuring resilience against both majoritarian impulses and sectarian provocations.

VII. Reform Agenda

To translate India’s pluralistic constitutional secularism from episodic judicial affirmation into enduring governance practice, this Article proposes five interlocking reforms. Each measure is designed to shore up statutory clarity, institutional capacity, and civic resilience, thereby safeguarding secularism’s “principled distance” ethos against majoritarian capture and digital-age hate.

1. Codify a Tripartite Essential-Religious-Practices (ERP) Test –

 a. Historical Precedent: Presume as “essential” those religious practices demonstrably integral to a faith community’s identity as of 1950, evidenced by contemporaneous doctrinal texts (e.g., scriptures, recognised commentaries) or uninterrupted communal observance.
 b. Textual Coherence: Require courts to engage in doctrinal exegesis across intra-religious denominations, assessing primary sources, authoritative treatises, and recognised institutional positions to establish whether a practice is core to religious identity.
 c. Constitutional Balancing: Mandate that any practice impinging on Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), or public order yield to those provisions. Practices denying gender equality, infringing fundamental rights, or fomenting public disorder are non-essential and subject to regulation or prohibition.
 d. Procedural Safeguards: Institute a statutorily prescribed sixty-day timeline from challenge filing to ERP determination; permit affected religious bodies to intervene; and vest appellate review in a five-judge Constitutional Bench for consistency.

2. Enact a Time-Bound National Hate-Speech Statute –

 a. Definition and Scope: Adopt the UN Rabat Plan’s six-factor test to distinguish protected speech from prohibited incitement, codifying “hate speech” as communication intentionally or recklessly vilifying a protected class (religion) likely to provoke violence or discrimination.
 b. Four-Hour Digital Takedown: Require online intermediaries (per IT-Rules 2021 definitions) to remove or disable access to flagged content within four hours of notification by authorised “Hate-Speech Monitoring Cells”; noncompliance triggers fines up to 5% of global turnover and intermediary liability.
 c. Civil Injunctions and Community Service: Empower district courts to issue interim restraining orders against repeat offenders, mandating attendance at state-certified “Interfaith Dialogue Workshops” and supervised community service in local peace-building initiatives.
 d. Monitoring and Reporting: Establish a statutory National Digital Media Ethics Board comprising judiciary, executive, civil society, and technology experts to audit platform compliance quarterly and publish a public “Hate-Speech Compliance Index.”

3. Institutionalise Secularism Benches in Superior Courts –

 a. Permanent Specialised Benches: Constitute dedicated five-judge Benches in the Supreme Court and each High Court to hear writ petitions and appeals under Articles 25–28, Article 32, and hate-speech statutes.
 b. Expertise and Training: Integrate comparative secularism jurisprudence, digital-speech regulation, and conflict-resolution pedagogy into National Judicial Academy curricula; mandate periodic bench seminars with international experts on laïcité, laiklik, and First-Amendment doctrines.
 c. Expedited Procedures: Adopt a fast-track case management regime with a six-month decision target from filing to judgment for communally sensitive disputes, modelled on telecom sector “time-to-decision” norms.

4. Phase-In Uniform Civil Code via Consultative Pilots –

 a. Opt-In State Pilots: Encourage additional States to adopt the UCC pilots modelled on Uttarakhand’s consultative process—engaging religious councils, women’s groups, tribal leaders, and legal experts—to draft codes for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and live-in partnerships.
 b. Safeguards for Minorities and Tribals: Embed exemptions or alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms for Scheduled Tribes and recognised minority practices, subject to five-year reviews.
 c. Gender-Justice Mandate: Establish minimum egalitarian benchmarks (equal inheritance shares, mutual divorce rights, minimum marriage age) as non-negotiable core requirements.
 d. Parliamentary Oversight: Require each pilot State to submit biennial progress reports to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Personal Law Reform, enabling legislative fine-tuning before nationwide enactment.

5. Strengthen Civic Resilience through Education and Local Engagement –

 a. Interfaith Curriculum Integration: Mandate modules on constitutional secularism, religious literacy, and hate-speech awareness in secondary-school civics and higher-education law courses, drawing on Indonesia’s Pancasila pedagogy and Singapore’s multicultural frameworks.
 b. Community Harmony Committees: Institutionalise district-level multi-stakeholder committees—comprising religious leaders, panchayat members, women’s organisations, and youth—to mediate grassroots disputes, organise interfaith cultural exchanges, and coordinate rapid responses to communal flashpoints.
 c. Media and Digital Literacy Campaigns: Partner with civil-society fact-checkers (e.g., AltNews) to produce multilingual resources on detecting disinformation, reporting hate speech, and leveraging grievance mechanisms.
d. Grants for Peace-Projects: Establish a Secularism and Democracy Fund under NITI Aayog to provide seed grants for grassroots NGOs and student groups engaged in peace-building initiatives, hackathons on countering online vitriol, and community theatre exploring pluralism.

These reforms, woven into legislative and institutional frameworks, will convert episodic affirmations of secularism into durable practices, ensuring India’s principled-distance model adapts to twenty-first-century challenges while preserving its foundational commitment to liberty, equality, and fraternity.

VIII. Conclusion

The Pahalgam massacre of 22 April 2025 constituted both a profound crisis and a clarion call for India’s constitutional order. By compelling pilgrims to recite the kalimah, conducting religious identification checks, and executing innocents, militants of The Resistance Front assaulted not merely individual lives but the very bedrock of India’s plural democracy. In the immediate aftermath, the Union Home Ministry’s decisive paramilitary deployments, diplomatic expulsions, and financial sanctions demonstrated the State’s capacity to treat communal terrorism as a national security emergency. Equally significant was the Supreme Court’s unprecedented suo motu invocation of Article 32 within twenty-four hours—mandating weekly NIA updates, four-hour social-media hate-speech takedowns, and universal legal aid via NALSA—which underscored secularism’s status as an inviolable basic feature and signalled the judiciary’s transformation from passive arbiter to proactive constitutional guardian.

Yet constitutional resilience cannot rest on episodic heroics alone. India’s hybrid “principled distance” model—an adaptive synthesis of accommodation and reform—has withstood myriad tests, from Partition-era communal violence to contemporary challenges of religious nationalism. The doctrinal journey from Articles 25–28, 14–16, and 44 to the 1976 Preamble amendment and the Basic Structure Doctrine exemplifies how constitutional ethos can evolve through judicial creativity and legislative affirmation. Landmark rulings—Bijoe Emmanuel’s protection of minority conscience, Sabarimala and Shayara Bano’s assertion of gender equality, and In re Pahalgam’s redefinition of communal violence as a basic-structure threat—highlight the judiciary’s capacity to recalibrate the secular balance in response to shifting social imperatives.

Comparative lessons reinforce this adaptive imperative. France’s exclusionary laïcité and Turkey’s state-controlled laiklik warn against over-zealous separation or bureaucratic centralisation, which can estrange minorities or enable executive capture. The U.S. First Amendment’s dual-clause jurisprudence and Singapore’s MRHA illustrate that robust protection of religious freedom requires both constitutional clarity and pre-emptive regulatory mechanisms. India must thus codify a Tripartite Essential-Religious-Practices Test to provide doctrinal certainty; enact time-bound hate-speech laws modelled on Singapore’s takedown regime; institutionalise Secularism Benches for fast-track adjudication; pilot Uniform Civil Code modules with rigorous safeguards; and empower community-level Harmony Committees to build resilience from the ground up.

Implementation of this comprehensive Reform Agenda will demand political will, legislative discipline, and sustained civic engagement. Entrenching statutory hate-speech norms and digital ethics oversight will curb incendiary speech without curtailing legitimate dissent. Formalising ERP criteria will prevent ad hoc doctrinal oscillations and safeguard cultural practices that pose no threat to constitutional morality. Institutionalising specialised benches and judicial training will professionalise communal-sensitivity adjudication. Phased UCC pilots—under Joint Parliamentary Committee oversight—will balance uniformity with plural accommodation. And embedding secularism and interfaith literacy in educational curricula, coupled with grants for peace projects, will nurture a public culture resistant to sectarian manipulation.

Ultimately, safeguarding India’s secular promise requires converting crisis-driven responses into durable frameworks that transcend electoral cycles and technological disruptions. The Pahalgam tragedy revealed how digital virality, geopolitical manoeuvres, and domestic polarisations can converge to undermine constitutional guarantees. In response, India must weave its constitutional values into every stratum of governance and civil society, ensuring that secularism is not merely a Preamble flourish but an operational principle guiding policy, law, and public discourse. Only through such holistic, layered reform can India fortify its plural democracy against the twin perils of majoritarianism and sectarian violence.

As India navigates twenty-first-century challenges—transnational ideologies, cyber-propaganda, and resurgent identity politics—the secular compass must remain calibrated to the ethos of equality, fraternity, and liberty. The Constitution’s promise of “fraternity”—tested by Pahalgam and reaffirmed by rapid judicial and legislative action—must transcend episodic mobilisations to become ingrained in institutional practice and civic consciousness. In doing so, India will honour its founding commitment to plural citizenship and chart a resilient path toward inclusive, democratic resilience in an increasingly fractured world.

Name: Indira Chakraborty

Institutional Affiliation:
Shyambazar Law College affiliated with The University of Calcutta.

Bibliography

1. National Investigation Agency, Press Release on Pahalgam Attack (Apr. 23, 2025).
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
3. In re Pahalgam Terror Attack, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2025 (S.C. Apr. 23, 2025).
4. Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A 1990) (Sing.).
5. Gunmen launch rare attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, BBC News (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9vyzzyjzlo.
6. India Const. arts. 25–28, 44 (1950).
7. Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976 (India), Preamble.
8. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1.
9. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 615.
10. Nabaarun Barooah, How Global Media Whitewashed the Pahalgam Hindu Massacre, Swarajya (Apr. 26, 2025), https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/how-global-media-whitewashed-the-pahalgam-hindu-massacre.
11. India Const. art. 44 (Directive Principles).
12. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, supra note 2, at 356–57.
13. Bijoe Emmanuel, supra note 9, at 620–22.
14.   2025 Pahalgam attack, Wikipedia (Apr. 22, 2025), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack.
15.   Id.
16.   Kashmir attack 2025: 26 tourists killed in India’s Pahalgam, Al Mayadeen (Apr. 23, 2025), https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/kashmir-attack-2025–26-tourists-killed-in-india-s-pahalgam.
17.   Gunmen launch rare attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, BBC News (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9vyzzyjzlo.   
18.   Nabaarun Barooah, How Global Media Whitewashed the Pahalgam Hindu Massacre, Swarajya (Apr. 26, 2025), https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/how-global-media-whitewashed-the-pahalgam-hindu-massacre.
19.   Id.
20.   Proxy war is back in Kashmir. Pahalgam attack exposes Pakistan Army’s frustration over peace, The Print (Apr. 24, 2025), https://theprint.in/opinion/proxy-war-is-back-in-kashmir-pahalgam-attack-exposes-pakistan-armys-frustration-over-peace/2602529/.  
21.   Id.
22.   The Times of India, Shankaracharya and Imam Unite Against Terror (Apr. 24, 2025).
23.   In re Pahalgam Terror Attack, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2025 (S.C. Apr. 23, 2025).
24.   Id.
25.   Id.
26.   India Const. arts. 25–28, 44 (1950); Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976 (India), Preamble.
27.   Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
28.   Rajeev Bhargava, The Distinctiveness of Indian Secularism, 59 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 40 (2008).
29.   Id.
30.   Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 615; Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, (2018) 13 S.C.C. 1.
31.   Kashmir attacks derail India’s Indo-Pacific ambitions, East Asia Forum (June 7, 2025), https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/06/07/kashmir-attacks-derail-indias-indo-pacific-ambitions/.
32.   Ministry of Home Affairs, Press Note No. 2123552 (Apr. 25, 2025).
33.   National Hate-Speech Code Bill (PMB 2025) (introduced July 1, 2025).
34.   Loi du 9 décembre 1905 portant séparation des Églises et de l’État [French Law on Secularism]; Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A 1990) (Sing.).
35.   Constitution of Turkey art. 136 (1982).
36.   Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A 1990) (Sing.).
37.   Bhargava, supra note 28.
38.   Operation Sindoor: a turning point for India in addressing terrorism, ICCT (May 21, 2025), https://icct.nl/publication/operation-sindoor-turning-point-india-addressing-terrorism-kashmir.  
39.   Secularism basic, unamendable part of Constitution, says SC, Times of India (Oct. 22, 2024), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/secularism-basic-unamendable-part-of-constitution-says-sc/articleshow/114438759.cms.   
40.   Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
41.   S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1.
42.   Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 615.
43.   Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, (2018) 13 S.C.C. 1.
44.   In re Pahalgam Terror Attack, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2025 (S.C. Apr. 23, 2025).
45.   Loi du 9 décembre 1905 portant séparation des Églises et de l’État [French Law on Secularism].
46.   Constitution of Turkey art. 136 (1982).
47.   U.S. Const. amend. I; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
48.   Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990 (Cap. 167A) (Sing.).
49.   Parliament of India, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Debates (Apr.–June 2025) (transcripts on file with author).
50.   Gunmen launch rare attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, BBC News (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9vyzzyjzlo; see also The Hindu, coverage Apr.–May 2025.  
51.   Nabaarun Barooah, How Global Media Whitewashed the Pahalgam Hindu Massacre, Swarajya (Apr. 26, 2025), https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/how-global-media-whitewashed-the-pahalgam-hindu-massacre.
52.   India Const. art. 25 (1950).
53.   India Const. art. 26 (1950).
54.   India Const. art. 27 (1950).
55.   India Const. art. 28 (1950).
56.   India Const. art. 14 (1950).
57.   India Const. art. 15 (1950).
58.   India Const. art. 44 (1950).
59.   Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976 (India), Preamble.
60.   Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
61.   S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1, 239–41.
62.   Rajeev Bhargava, The Distinctiveness of Indian Secularism, 59 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 40 (2008).
63.   Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 615.
64.   Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, (2018) 13 S.C.C. 1.
65.   Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 S.C.C. 1.
66.   T.M.A. Pai Found. v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481.
67.   M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 360.
68.   U.S. Const. amend. I; Loi du 9 déc. 1905 – French Law on Separation.
69.   In re: Article 370 of the Constitution, [2023] INSC 785.
70.   In re Pahalgam Terror Attack, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2025 (S.C. Apr. 23, 2025).
71.   Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution 215–17 (Oxford Univ. Press 1999).
72.   Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955 (India); Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, No. 29 of 1956; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, No. 26 of 1956.
73.   India Const. art. 44 (Directive Principles).
74.   India Const. art. 44 (1950).
75.   Law Commission of India, Report No. 31 (1958), Uniform Civil Code; Law Commission of India, Report No. 119 (1985), Reform of Muslim Personal Law.
76.   Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 7, cols. 543–44 (Nov. 23, 1948) (debate on UCC).
77.   Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 S.C.C. 1.
78.   Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (India).
79.   Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, No. 1 (India).
80.   Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (privacy rights).  
81.   Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 432/2024 (pending S.C.).
82.   Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, § 3(2) (India).
83.   Puttaswamy, supra note 10.
84.   Id.
85.   Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act 2025 (India).
86.   National Hate-Speech Code Bill (PMB 2025) (introduced July 1, 2025).
87.   Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Law, Justice, and the UCC Debate, J. Indian L. & Soc’y 83, 95–98 (2025).
88.   Ministry of Law and Justice, Guidelines for State Pilot UCC (2023) (on file with author).
89.   Joint Committee on Personal Law Reform, Interim Report (2024).
90.   Law Commission Report No. 256 (2015), Simplification of Laws Related to Maintenance.
91.   Leila Seth, Justice: A Woman’s Pursuit 142–45 (Penguin 2020).
92.   2025 Pahalgam attack, Wikipedia (Apr. 22, 2025), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack.  
93.   National Investigation Agency, Forensic Report on Pahalgam Attack (Apr. 24, 2025) (on file with author).
94.   Id.
95.   The Print, TRF Blames Cyber Intrusion for Pahalgam Claim (Apr. 27, 2025), https://theprint.in/TRF_retraction.  
96.   Ministry of Home Affairs, Press Release No. 2123552 (Apr. 25, 2025), https://pib.gov.in.
97.   Ministry of External Affairs, Diplomatic Note to Pakistan (Apr. 24, 2025), https://mea.gov.in.
98.   Financial Action Task Force, Statement on Pakistan Re-Listing Petition (Apr. 26, 2025), https://fatf-gafi.org.
99.   In re Pahalgam Terror Attack, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2025 (S.C. Apr. 23, 2025).
100.   Id.
101.   Id.
102.   Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act 2025 (India).
103.   National Hate-Speech Code Bill (PMB 2025) (introduced July 1, 2025) (on file with author).
104.   National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Order 2025, § 3 (India).
105.   The Times of India, Interfaith Vigil in Delhi Condemns Pahalgam Massacre (Apr. 25, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/interfaith-vigil.  
106.   Peacebuilders Forum, Rapid Response Report on Pahalgam Aftermath (May 2025) (on file with author).
107.   AltNews, Fact-Check Report on Pahalgam Misinformation (Apr. 28, 2025), https://altnews.in/pahalgam-fake-news.  
108.   Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Situation Report (May 2025) (on file with author).
109.   Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Department, Monthly Visitor Statistics (May 2025) (on file with author).
110.   Supreme Court of India, Annual Report 2025 – Judicial Reforms Section, at 45.
111.   Loi du 9 décembre 1905 portant séparation des Églises et de l’État [French Law on Secularism].
112.   Id. art. 2.
113.   Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols in public schools.
114.   Human Rights Watch, France: Discrimination Against Muslim Women (2021).
115.   Constitution of Turkey art. 136 (1982).
116.   Ahmet T. Kuru, Secularism and State in Modern Turkey 120–22 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2009).
117.   Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Bütçe Raporu [Diyanet Budget Report] 2010–2023.
118.   U.S. Const. amend. I.
119.   Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971).
120.   Erin Daly & John L. Allen Jr., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics 75–78 (2013).
121.   Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
122.   Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990 (Cap. 167A) (Sing.).
123.   Id. § 8A.
124.   Cherian George, Contentious Journalism and the Internet 58–60 (2014).
125.   Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282.
126.   Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, (2018) 13 S.C.C. 1.
127.   Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 S.C.C. 1.
128.   I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1.
129.   UN Human Rights Council, Rabat Plan of Action (2012).
130.   Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, r. 3(1)(b).
131.   Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A 1990) (Sing.).
132.   Singapore Ministry of Communications and Information, Unicode Report on Digital Ethics Board (2019).
133.   Constitution of India art. 32.
134.   National Judicial Academy, Comparative Secularism Training Manual (2024).
135.   Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Guidelines on Time-to-Decision Benchmarks (2020).
136.   Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, No. 1 (India).
137.   Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, § 3(i).
138.   Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, § 4.
139.   Parliament of India, Report of the Joint Committee on Personal Law Reform (2024).
140.   Ministry of Education (Singapore), Interfaith Curriculum Framework (2023).
141.   Peacebuilders Forum, District Harmony Toolkit (2025).
142.   AltNews, Media Literacy Toolkit (2024).
143.   NITI Aayog, Secularism and Democracy Fund Guidelines (2025).
144.   National Investigation Agency, Forensic Report on Pahalgam Attack (Apr. 24 2025) (on file with author).
145.   Ministry of Home Affairs, Press Release No. 2123552 (Apr. 25 2025), https://pib.gov.in.  
146.   In re Pahalgam Terror Attack, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2025 (S.C. Apr. 23 2025).
147.   Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
148.   Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 615; Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, (2018) 13 S.C.C. 1.
149.   Loi du 9 décembre 1905 portant séparation des Églises et de l’État [French Law on Secularism]; Constitution of Turkey art 136 (1982).
150.   U.S. Const. amend. I; Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990 (Cap. 167A) (Sing.).
151.   Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, r 3(1)(b) (India).
152.   Ministry of Education (Singapore), Interfaith Curriculum Framework (2023).

___________________