Can’t be party to annihilation of a religion: SC on Sabarimala case | India News
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that if an individual’s fundamental right to freedom of religion is held to be superior to the uniform right of a group or community, it can lead to dangerous consequences and the court is not going to be part of the process of destroying a religion.Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist who was harassed for trying to enter Sabarimala after the 2018 SC verdict lifted the ban on entry of women aged 10-50, spoke of her fundamental right to enter the temple. Indira Jaising, Bindu and another woman appearing for Kanakdurga said there was no theological bar to women entering any public temple.Matters of religion are matters of conscience, not for debate: SCAppearing before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, A Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate Indira Jaisingh said Bindu did not dispute ‘atheist celibate’ qualities, but the practice of Vaiyappa could not be the basis. Fundamental right to enter temple.Jaisingh said that the Indian Constitution was recognized as unique across the world as it gave importance to the fundamental rights of the individual. “If a woman wants to go to a temple, is she doing a legal harm to anyone? If the court wants to rule otherwise, let it go ahead and do that and the world will see how the Supreme Court of India develops jurisprudence on women’s rights,” Jaisingh said.Justice Sundresh disagreed with his argument and asked that if an individual’s right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) conflicts with that right of devotees or followers of a community, whose rights prevail?“How do we enforce individual rights when it violates the fundamental rights of others? Article 25(1) The rights of one cannot be set against another. If we agree with your submission, it will lead to dangerous consequences. If every devotee approaches a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship in a different way, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or the community,” he said.Justice Nagarathna agreed with him and said, “This will lead to the destruction of religion, and we do not want to be a part of it. The matter of religion is not a matter on which the courts or the legislature can rule. It cannot be a matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience.”Justice Amanullah asked whether a custom or practice, which has crystallized over centuries, should be removed by the court to ensure that a person has to visit a temple knowing that it will hurt the religious sentiments of the majority of followers of the community. Arguments will continue on Thursday.
