Sabarimala Reference | If Believer Prevented From Touching Deity Only Due To Birth, Can't Constitution Intervene? Supreme Court Asks

On the sixth day of the hearing in the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally asked if the Constitution can intervene if a believer is prevented from touching the deity only on account of his birth identity.Justice Ahasanuddin Amanullah, member of the 9-judge bench, posed this query to Senior Advocate V Giri, who argued that the right of a believer under Article 25 to enter a place of worship must be in sync with the characteristics of the deity. Giri is appearing for the Thanthri (Chief Priest) of the Sabarimala Temple, who is the lead review petitioner seeking review of the 2018 judgment which allowed the entry of women of all age groups to the Lord Ayyappa Temple.Giri's argument was that the right to worship under Article 25 can be claimed only by a person who has a belief in the deity, including the particular characteristics of the deity. "No person who believes in the idol of the temple, and would consider the deity as his Lord, would act in derogation to the essential characteristic of the temple because such a practice can't be treated as a part of practice of his religion. I have a right to practice my religion under Article 25, and therefore, when I go to a public place of worship, I can't lack in the belief and still want to go to the place of worship for the purpose of worship. My right under article 25(1), in so far it encapsulates the right to enter the place of worship, will have to be in sync with the practices that are carried out by the temples as such and the characteristics of the deity. If the characteristics of the deity are as such that it's not possible for me to go there, if I am a woman(since it's on merits of the case, I am not touching it), it has to be in sync with the characteristics of the religion," he submitted.He submitted that the characteristic of the deity in Sabarimala is that the deity is a permanent celibate.At this juncture, Justice BV Nagarathna reiterated her earlier observation, "A believer will not question the rationality and its no business for a non-believer to question it because he is a non-believer anyway."Justice Prasanna B Varale at this juncture posed whether a genuine believer, who has exposure to new technologies and philosophies, can question some age-old practices. He commented that traditions and beliefs can change over time. "Is it taking us to that submission that if I am a believer, I may not be rational, if it's a long-standing practice, accept it and I should follow it without going into all other aspects. It is possible that a believer at some time in earlier years was thinking this way, but a believer now, with the advance of technology, education, thinking and having exposure to other philosophies, can we say that a believer, if he believes, it's okay and fine. You need not to be a rational," he said.Taking a cue from Justice Varale, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked if it was open for a member of the denomination to question some of the denominational practices, and what should be the Court's response in such a situation."You say a religious practice is unique to the denomination, and therefore, anyone who believes and is a part of the denomination is a believer and naturally will defer to it. If that argument holds, then will you agree that it will be contrary to an inner debate in the denomination itself, with regard to what ought to be a religious practice itself? In this situation, what would be the role of the court?"He added: "Let us say, a person who is a believer comes to the court and challenges the belief of the denomination itself, which is being put on canvas as a religious practice of the denomination. He says, no this has no ancient antiquity. this is not connect to the main core faith which we all profess. In this situation, will a believer will or will not be in a position to challenge the denominational claims of matters of faith?" Justice Bagchi asked.Giri replied that it is not within the bounds of a believer to question the denominational practices, because that would mean there is no belief. "If I go to the temple for the purpose of worship, then whatever is an integral part of the manner in which the deity is consecrated, and the deity is worshipped and the temple is maintained, it is out of bounds for me in sofar as Article 25 is concerned because this is a part of the practice of my religion which alone is protected," Giri responded.Justice Sundresh also seemingly agreed with Giri by saying that the Court may not entertain a challenge at the instance of a sole believer who was questioning a practice followed by the majority. "Let us say the denomination consists of 100 persons, and they constitute a common belief, and one stands up and say, I don't agree with this particular belief. So, as you rightly put it, your question is, you stand apart because adjudicating upon his right by a constitutional court under articles 25 and 26 would be a problem because it is not your belief, but it's a belief of the 99. So...

Sabarimala Reference | If Believer Prevented From Touching Deity Only Due To Birth, Can't Constitution Intervene? Supreme Court Asks

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Sabarimala Reference | If Believer Prevented From Touching Deity Only Due To Birth, Can't Constitution Intervene? Supreme Court Asks

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers