Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud has argued that ‘a commitment to pluralism did not imply non-interference where group practices hinder the constitutional vision of an equal citizenship premised on equal dignity, worth and liberty of every individual’.447 In other words, group rights exist, but the court can and does intervene to uphold individual rights when these are compromised by one’s group. The challenge in Indian nationalism has always been that of finding ways of acknowledging and accommodating difference.
