Sabarimala case: Supreme Court says religious practices open to legal scrutiny

The Supreme Court on Friday said judges must rise above personal religious beliefs and be guided by freedom of conscience and the broader constitutional framework while deciding matters of faith, adding that religious practices are open to legal scrutiny.

The nine-member bench made these observations while hearing the Sabarimala temple entry case. The apex court is reviewing its 2018 verdict that had lifted the prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the temple.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for an intervenor, said the case goes beyond Hindu practices or the Sabarimala issue and deals with the constitutional framework governing all religions and matters of conscience.

“The concern is to lay down the law for everybody, every belief and every matter of conscience,” Dhavan said, adding that the court’s endeavour must be to harmonise when there are divisions in society. He argued that an individual can question a religion, but it must be in a respectful manner.

At this juncture, Justice Nagarathna asked Dhavan, “Are you saying conscience is something larger than religion? Should conscience take the colour of religion?”

Justice Amanullah also joined the discussion and asked him, “Are you suggesting that judges should not equate religion with conscience, and must rise above personal beliefs to balance them with the Constitution and see the bigger picture?”

WHAT SABARIMALA PETITIONERS ARGUED TODAY

Senior advocate V Giri, appearing for Sabarimala Achara Samrakshna Samiti, submitted that there is collectively a wisdom that has been followed for years and years in exclusion of women aged between 10-50 not being allowed in Sabarimala temple.

Giri submitted that every temple has its own distinct characteristic and the maintenance of those characteristics is part of the worship.

“One cannot completely jettison the principle of essential religious practice in deciding whether the right under Article 25(1) is protected or violated if such a practice is upheld and followed.

“What I seek to submit is that my fundamental right under Article 25(1) is to practise the religion to which I belong, in this case Hinduism, which includes idol worship,” Giri said.

Senior advocate MR Venkatesh, appearing for Atman Trust, said that the practice of women voluntarily refraining from entering temples or puja rooms during menstruation is rooted in discipline and belief, and not in notions of discrimination.

“All temples in South India, primarily when women undergo a monthly biological process, voluntarily by their own discipline they do not enter temples. This is a non-written rule. Even in the house, they do not enter the puja room. This is my belief. I can’t give a scientific explanation, but when science ends, belief begins. This is practised as a discipline by all ladies or most ladies in the South,” he said.

WHAT HAPPENED IN 2018?

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict, lifted the ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Later, on November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench.

The bench had then framed broad issues on freedom of religion, saying they cannot be decided without any facts of the particular case.

(With inputs from PTI)

- Ends

Tune In