Supreme Court questions limits of judicial scrutiny under Article 25 | India News

New Delhi: The Travancore Devaswam Board (TDB) on Wednesday asked a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court whether the court can ban the public appearance of nude saints of the Digambara sect of Jainism, even though the Constitution provides for ‘public order, health and morality’ and public nudity is a crime against every religious community.This was the response of senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for TDB, to the nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant’s persistent questions – why a court cannot examine whether a custom or policy is part of an essential religious practice to be free from judicial scrutiny and judicial scrutiny should be limited under the constitutional parameters of Article 2′.Even some extreme examples do not come under judicial scrutiny, Singhvi said. Citing the example of a notable Jain sect of ‘Dagambar’, he says, “There is no doubt that nudity is abhorrent to normal norms of civilized behavior in most societies. Yet, since Digambar Jain practices, including naked existence and naked movement in public, are undoubtedly accepted as an essential part of a religion, it cannot be considered an essential part of religion. 25.”“Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joined Singhvi and cited the example of ‘Naga sadhus’, who walk around naked. Interestingly, Nepal’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition last September, which sought a ban on the entry of Naga saints into the Pashupatinath temple during the Mahashivratri festival, claiming that the obscenity caused by their public nudity disturbs other devotees.The Nepal SC ruled that nudity mandated by religion cannot be considered obscene and dismissed a public interest plea. The Supreme Court of the neighboring country said, “Nudity is a physical state, generally referring to the exposure of sexual organs or body parts. However, obscenity means anything that arouses sexual desire or is socially and culturally considered shameful or offensive. Therefore, not all instances of nudity can be considered obscene.”““For example, nudity expressed in artistic fantasy, for religious purposes, or for medical/therapeutic use, cannot be considered obscene. Similarly, ancient sculptures of gods and goddesses with decorative art in temples, or nude images/statues displayed in museums cannot automatically be marked as obscene,” the Nepal SC said, adding that since the temple-going tradition of Naga saints is centuries old, “banning their entry would violate religious beliefs both at the national and international levels.“Singhvi said, “Importantly and significantly, an external judge like a court of law cannot and should not sit to pass judgment on what is considered to be the belief or practice of a religion. It is reiterated that the subjective belief of the community, though important and unnecessary, is important and irrelevant to determining the belief or practice. By itself“