Sabarimala: Sect-based restriction not good for Hinduism, says SC
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that Hinduism will be adversely impacted and the society will stand divided if temples and "mutts" restrict entry on the grounds of sect and separate denominations inside a religion, PTI reported.
A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant made these oral observations while responding to the submissions of senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan that Article 26(b) of the Constitution gives the right to a religious denomination to manage its own affairs and will have primacy over Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the State to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of public nature.
Vaidyanathan appeared in the court on behalf of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa of the historic Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The bench, also comprising Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.
Vaidyanathan, representing the Nair Service Society and other organisations related to the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, vehemently put forth the point that they constitute a separate religious denomination and consequently, have the right to manage the affairs of the hilltop temple.
He submitted that a denominational temple can give permissive rights and have worship, or confine it only to the denomination.
To this, Justice Nagarathna said, "There is one apprehension. If you say the right of entry, in the context of (the) Venkataramana Devaru (judgment of the apex court), where they said anybody other than Gowda Saraswat Brahmins is excluded, it will negatively affect Hinduism."
She added, "Everybody must have access to every temple and mutt. Keep aside the controversy in the Sabarimala judgment (2018). But if you say it is a practice and it is a matter of religion that I will exclude others and only my section, my denomination, will attend the temple and nobody else, that is not good for Hinduism. Let the religion not be adversely affected. It will be counter-productive for the denomination."
Concurring with the view, Justice Kumar said such exclusions will divide the society.
Vaidyanathan said in reality, there are private family temples in Kerala where only the members of these families go, and these temples serve only their denomination, they cannot seek funds either from the state, private donors or the public because they are not dependent on them.
If a law is to be made, it has to pass the test of public order, morality or health, he asserted.
Justice Nagarathna said she was not referring to such private temples, and regardless of the question the Devaru judgment decided, "Let the religion not be adversely affected."
She told Vaidyanathan to keep aside the Sabarimala controversy and emphasised that if the argument is that only Gowda Saraswat Brahmins must come to a temple, the followers of the Kanchi Mutt must only go to Kanchi, they should not go to Sringeri, the followers of Sringeri must not go to Kanchi, then it will affect the religion".
Vaidyanathan said it was a reality, and it was for each denomination to think about that.
Justice Nagarathna said the State can step in under Article 25(2)(b) to ensure access to temples to all sections of society.
Justice Kumar also told Vaidyanathan, "That is why we said, do not pitch the argument too high," referring to his contention that Article 26(b) supersedes Article 25(2)(b).
Vaidyanathan argued that holding that Article 25(2)(b) will prevail over Article 26(b) will uniquely affect the Hindu religion only, since Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to make laws only to make Hindu temples open to all sections of society.
He agreed that public temples must be open to all, but added that the same cannot be insisted for denominational temples.
