In Sabarimala case, Hindu party urges SC to revisit 30-year-old order on Hinduism | India News
New Delhi: Amid the ‘faith vs fundamental rights’ debate arising from the traditional ban on women aged 10-50 entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, a Hindu group on Tuesday urged a nine-judge Supreme Court bench to reconsider its 30-year-old judgment declaring Hinduism.Objecting to the 1996 three-judge bench judgment of Ramesh Jaswant Prabhu that Hinduism can be “broadly described as a way of life and nothing more”, a lawyer appearing for the Hindu party said that Hinduism is not a way of life, but an amalgamation of an ocean and an amalgamation of beliefs in religious numbers.
On the ninth day of the trial before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, A Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate DV Singh said that to determine what constituted an essential Hindu religious practice, the court had to decide “what Hinduism can dictate” and “Hinduism”. Bhagavad Gita help for this.Senior advocate M R Shamshad’s request on Thursday reflected a nine-judge bench to review the 1994 five-judge bench judgment of Ismail Farooqui, which rejected the government’s challenge to acquisition of the then-controversial Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, saying mosque prayers were not essential. He said that mosque is the spirit of Islam and it is the core belief of Muslims.In Ramesh Jaswant Prabhu Roy, SC said, “When we think of Hinduism, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define or even adequately describe Hinduism.”“Unlike other religions of the world, Hinduism does not claim a single prophet; it does not worship a single God; it does not believe in a single philosophical concept; it does not follow a set of religious rites or ceremonies; indeed, it does not seem to satisfy the narrow traditional characteristics of a religion or religion. It can be broadly described as a way of life,” the court said.“Generally, Hinduism is understood as a way of life or a state of mind, and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism… The terms ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hinduism’ need not be construed and interpreted narrowly, limited only to strict Hindu religious practices which are unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the people of India,” it said in the judgment.In the Ismail Farooqui judgment, the SC ruled, “Masjid is not an essential part of the practice of Islam and prayers can be offered by Muslims anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition (of the disputed site) is not prohibited by the provisions of the Constitution of India.”
