New Delhi, April 9 The Supreme Court observed on Thursday that Hinduism would be negatively affected and society would be divided if temples and "mutts" restricted entry based on sect and denominations within a religion.
A nine-judge constitutional bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, made these observations while responding to the arguments of senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan that Article 26(b) of the Constitution gives a religious denomination the right to manage its affairs and that it takes precedence over Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the State to make Hindu religious institutions open to all.
Vaidyanathan was representing the devotees of Lord Ayyappa at the historic Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The bench, which also included Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women in religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and on the scope and extent of religious freedom practiced by various faiths.
Vaidyanathan argued that a denominational temple can have specific rights and practices, but it cannot exclude others.
Justice Nagarathna said, "If we say that entry is restricted, in the context of the Venkataramana Devaru judgment, where it was stated that anyone other than Gowda Saraswat Brahmins is excluded, this will negatively affect Hinduism."
She added, "Everyone should have access to every temple and mutt. We should set aside the controversy in the 2018 Sabarimala judgment. But if we say that this is a practice and a matter of religion that I will exclude others and only my section can attend the temple, that is not good for Hinduism. We should not allow religion to be negatively affected. It would be counterproductive for the denomination."
Agreeing with this view, Justice Kumar said that such exclusions would divide society.
Vaidyanathan explained that in reality, there are private family temples in Kerala where only members of these families go, and these temples serve only their denomination. They cannot seek funds from the state, private donors, or the public because they are not dependent on them.
He argued that any law must meet the criteria of public order, morality, or health.
Justice Nagarathna said that she was not referring to these private temples, and regardless of the decision in the Devaru judgment, "We should not allow religion to be negatively affected."
She told Vaidyanathan to set aside the Sabarimala controversy and emphasized that if the argument is that only Gowda Saraswat Brahmins must be allowed to attend a temple, then followers of the Kanchi Mutt should only go to Kanchi, they should not go to Sringeri, and followers of Sringeri should not go to Kanchi, then it will affect religion.
Vaidyanathan explained that this is a reality, and each denomination needs to consider this.
Justice Nagarathna said that the State can intervene under Article 25(2)(b) to ensure that all sections of society have access to temples.
Justice Kumar also told Vaidyanathan, "That is why we said, do not make the argument too strong," referring to his contention that Article 26(b) supersedes Article 25(2)(b).
Vaidyanathan argued that holding that Article 25(2)(b) will prevail over Article 26(b) will uniquely affect Hinduism, since Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to make laws only to make Hindu temples open to all sections of society.
He agreed that public temples must be open to all, but added that this cannot be insisted upon for denominational temples.
In the Devaru judgment (1957), the top court had upheld the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, affirming that while a temple remains open to all Hindus, certain ceremonial practices reserved for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins are constitutionally permissible.
During the hearing, Vaidyanathan submitted that an individual's freedom of conscience defeats the freedom of the community or denomination.
Justice Kumar asked him whether he agrees that Article 26 is not a standalone provision and whether he agrees with the view of the Union government that the provision has to be read with Article 25(2).
Vaidyanathan said he disagrees with the Centre's submission, as Article 25(2) is an enabling power and does not confer any right, while Article 26 confers a specific right to a denomination.
He submitted that in the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, Justice (retired) D Y Chandrachud had asked a wrong question and got a wrong answer.
"He asked whether individual rights would prevail over group or collective rights, and he wrongly held that individual rights can prevail over collective religious rights," he submitted.
"In Sabarimala, there is no distinction made between devotees. There is no bar to Christians or Muslims even, but they must have faith and belief in the divinity of Lord Ayyappa, and they must follow rituals like the 40-day Vratam and whatever practices enjoined on believers. Nobody is prohibited, and therefore, this concept has not been understood."
The hearing will resume next week.