Supreme Court Voices Concern Over Sect-Based Temple Restrictions
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised serious concerns regarding arguments that advocate for sect-based restrictions within temples and mutts. The apex court emphasized that such exclusions could have a detrimental effect on Hinduism as a whole and potentially create divisions within society.
Constitutional Bench Examines Religious Freedom
The significant remarks were delivered by a nine-judge Constitution bench presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant. This bench is currently hearing a comprehensive batch of petitions that address discrimination against women at various religious sites, including the prominent Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The proceedings also explore the broader scope of religious freedom available to different faiths and denominations across the country.
The distinguished bench includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
Legal Arguments on Denominational Rights
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing devotees of Lord Ayyappa associated with the Sabarimala temple, presented arguments centered on constitutional provisions. He contended that Article 26(b) of the Constitution grants a religious denomination the fundamental right to manage its own internal affairs. According to his submission, this right should take precedence over Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the State to open Hindu religious institutions of a public nature to all sections and classes of society.
Appearing for the Nair Service Society and other organizations linked to Lord Ayyappa devotees, Vaidyanathan asserted that these groups constitute a distinct and separate religious denomination. Consequently, he argued, they possess the inherent right to manage the affairs of the hilltop Sabarimala temple. He clarified that while a denominational temple may restrict worship to its own members, public temples must remain accessible to everyone without discrimination.
Specifics of Sabarimala Access
Addressing the specific issue of access to the Sabarimala temple, Vaidyanathan stated, "In Sabarimala, there is no distinction made between devotees based on their background. There is no bar to Christians or Muslims entering, provided they possess genuine faith and belief in the divinity of Lord Ayyappa and adhere to prescribed rituals like the 40-day Vratam and other practices enjoined upon believers. Nobody is expressly prohibited, and this fundamental concept has perhaps not been fully understood."
Vaidyanathan further maintained that granting primacy to Article 25(2)(b) over Article 26(b) would uniquely and disproportionately affect Hinduism. This is because Article 25(2)(b) specifically enables the State to enact laws opening Hindu temples to all sections of society, a provision not similarly framed for other religions.
Distinction Between Public and Private Temples
The senior advocate also drew the court's attention to the existence of private family temples in Kerala, where worship is confined strictly to members of particular families. He explained that such temples serve only their specific denomination and do not seek funds from the State, private donors, or the general public, as they are not dependent on external financial support.
He argued that any law regulating temple entry must satisfy the constitutional tests of public order, morality, or health. Additionally, he submitted that an individual's freedom of conscience should not be allowed to override the collective freedom of a community or religious denomination.
Bench Expresses Apprehension Over Wider Impact
This line of argument prompted considerable concern from the bench regarding its potential wider impact on Hindu religious practices and social harmony.
Justice B V Nagarathna articulated a key apprehension, stating, "There is one serious apprehension. If you assert a right of entry based on denomination, referencing contexts like the Venkataramana Devaru judgment where the court upheld the exclusion of anyone other than Gowda Saraswat Brahmins, it could negatively affect Hinduism as a religion."
She emphasized, "Ideally, everybody must have access to every temple and mutt. Setting aside the specific controversy of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, if one argues that it is a religious practice to exclude others and permit only one's own section or denomination to attend a temple, that is not beneficial for Hinduism. Let the religion not be adversely affected. Such an approach could prove counter-productive even for the denomination itself."
Justice Aravind Kumar concurred with this view, noting that such exclusionary practices based on sects or denominations would ultimately lead to societal division.
Illustrating the Risk of Fragmentation
Justice Nagarathna further illustrated the risk by saying, "If the argument extends to mean that only Gowda Saraswat Brahmins can enter a particular temple, that followers of the Kanchi Mutt should only go to Kanchi and not to Sringeri, and followers of Sringeri must not visit Kanchi, then it will profoundly affect the religion's unity and integrity."
She also highlighted the State's role under Article 25(2)(b) to intervene and ensure access to temples for all sections of society, thereby upholding the principle of inclusivity.
Responding to Vaidyanathan's submission that Article 26(b) supersedes Article 25(2)(b), Justice Kumar remarked, "That is precisely why we cautioned against pitching the argument too high." Justice Nagarathna clarified that her concerns were not directed at private family temples but at the broader principle, reiterating, "Let the religion not be adversely affected."
Historical Context and Government's Position
During the hearing, the bench also deliberated on the landmark Devaru judgment of 1957. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, ruling that while a temple must remain open to all Hindus, certain ceremonial practices specifically reserved for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins could be constitutionally permissible.
Justice Kumar questioned Vaidyanathan on whether he agreed that Article 26 is not a standalone provision and must be interpreted in conjunction with Article 25(2), aligning with the Union government's stated position in the matter.
Vaidyanathan expressed his disagreement with the Centre's stand. He argued that Article 25(2) is merely an enabling provision for the State and does not confer any substantive right upon individuals, whereas Article 26 explicitly grants a specific and protected right to a religious denomination.
The hearing has been adjourned and is scheduled to resume next week, where these complex constitutional and religious questions will be examined further.
