The nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the Sabarimala temple row on Wednesday cautioned that judicial intervention in purely religious practices could lead to the “annihilation” of a religion and result in “dangerous situations”.
The top court wondered whether centuries-old traditions and rituals could be challenged by a non-believer.
“For centuries, certain things like customs and practices have crystallised and become an essential practice. You can’t forget history. With so much passage of time, it has been transformed into a basic element, and suddenly, after several years, somebody comes up with a petition,” the apex court orally told senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for two women who had challenged the ban on the entry of female devotees aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala shrine.
Jaising was appearing for Bindu and Kanaka Durga, who had entered the Ayyappa Sabarimala Temple after the September 2018 judgment of a five-judge constitution bench that had held the entry ban as being illegal and unconstitutional.
The nine-judge bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi is dealing with a batch of petitions/cross-petitions seeking a recall of or defending the 2018 judgment.
On the tenth day of hearing, Jaising commenced the arguments on behalf of the petitioners supporting the 2018 judgment.
Justice Nagarathna observed that matters related to religion were part of one’s conscience, which could not be a subject of judicial debate. Every deity has its own set of rituals and practices that are intrinsic to it, she added.
“For that reason, if you look at it, we otherwise will be faced with something like annihilation of religion… matters of religion are generally not something with which courts should intervene,” she observed.
Jaising argued that the issue before the court was the fundamental right of a citizen to enter a temple and not interference with ritualistic practices.
Justice Amanullah said the court must attempt to “lift the veil of intent” of the people challenging the practices adopted at religious places. “If you are saying you are a true believer, but you go to a place and violate the general predominant sentiments of other devotees, is it then the role of a true believer?”