‘Not good for Hinduism’: Supreme Court flags risks of sect-based temple restrictions during Sabarimala hearing | India News

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday expressed concern over the arguments supporting community-based restrictions on temples and mutts, saying such exclusion could adversely affect Hinduism and divide society.A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant made the remarks while hearing a batch of petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including religious places. Sabarimala templeand the extent of religious freedom available to different religions and communities.The bench also comprised Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundaresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Jayamalya Bagchi.Senior lawyer CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for devotees of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, argued that Article 26(b) of the Constitution gives a religious community the right to manage its own affairs and will prevail over Article 25(2)(b), which empowers all religious institutions in Hindu society to be open.Appearing for the Nair Service Society and other organizations associated with Lord Ayyappa devotees, Vaidyanathan argued that they constitute a separate religious community and therefore have the right to manage the affairs of the hilltop temple.He submits that a religious temple can allow worship or restrict it only to members of that community, whereas public temples must be open to all.On entering the Sabarimala temple, he said, “There is no discrimination between devotees in Sabarimala. There is no bar even for Christians or Muslims, but they must have faith and belief in the divinity of Lord Ayyappa and must follow rituals like 40 days of Vratham and adhere to whatever practices are believed in.” No one is forbidden and so the concept is not understood.”Vaidyanathan also maintained that giving Article 25(2)(b) precedence over Article 26(b) would uniquely affect Hinduism, since Article 25(2)(b) specifically enables the state to make laws opening Hindu temples to all sections of society.He also told the court that there are private family temples in Kerala where only certain family members worship and such temples serve only their community. He said such temples cannot seek funds from the state, private donors or the public as they are not dependent on them.He argued that legislation must pass the test of public order, morality or health.He also submitted that the freedom of conscience of an individual defeats the freedom of community or community.Referring to the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, Vaidyanathan said that Justice (retired) DY Chandrachud framed the issue wrongly.“He asked whether individual rights would prevail over group or collective rights and he wrongly assumed that individual rights could prevail over collective religious rights,” he submitted.This line of reasoning raised concerns from the bench, particularly over its wider implications for Hindu religious practice.Justice BV Nagarathna said, “There is an apprehension. If you talk about right of entry, in the context of Venkataramana Devaru (Supreme Court judgment), where they said that anyone other than Gowda Saraswat Brahmins are excluded, it will affect Hinduism negatively.”He added, “Everyone must have access to every temple and mutt. Leave aside the Sabarimala verdict (2018) controversy. But if you say that this is a practice and it is a matter of religion that I will exclude others and only my section, my community, attend the temple and no one else, that is not good for Hinduism. It should not be influenced for propaganda against religion.”Justice Arvind Kumar concurred, saying such exclusion would divide society.Justice Nagarathna also said, “If it is argued that only Gauda Saraswat Brahmins should come to a temple, followers of Kanchi Math should only go to Kanchi, they should not go to Sringeri, followers of Sringeri must not go to Kanchi, then it will affect religion”.He also said the state can take steps under Article 25(2)(b) to ensure access to temples for all sections of the society.Justice Kumar, responding to Vaidyanathan’s submission that Article 26(b) supersedes Article 25(2)(b), said, “That is why we have said, don’t over-pitch the argument.”Justice Nagarathna clarified that he was not referring to private family temples and said, “Religion should not be adversely affected.”During the hearing, the bench also discussed the Debru judgment of 1957, in which the Supreme Court upheld the Madras Temple Entry Act. The judgment held that while a temple would be open to all Hindus, certain ceremonial practices reserved for the Gauda Saraswath Brahmins were constitutionally permissible.Justice Kumar Vaidyanathan also asked whether he agreed that Article 26 was not a stand-alone provision and that it had to be read with Article 25(2) in line with the Central Government’s position.Vaidyanathan said he disagreed with the Centre’s stand, arguing that Article 25(2) is an enabling provision and does not confer any right, while Article 26 confers a specific right on a community.The hearing will resume next week.