The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that if an individual's fundamental right to freedom of religion is held to be superior to the identical right of a group or denomination, it could lead to dangerous consequences. The court stated it would not be part of a process that results in the annihilation of a religion.
Background of the Case
Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist, was manhandled for attempting to enter the Sabarimala temple after the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the shrine. She asserted her fundamental right to enter a temple. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Bindu and another woman Kanakadurga, argued that there was no theological bar on women entering any public temple.
Arguments Before the Bench
Appearing before a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Jaising stated that Bindu did not dispute the 'naistik brahmachari' (celibate) attributes of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala. However, she argued that the custom could not be a ground for violating her fundamental right to enter the temple. Jaising emphasized that the Indian Constitution is unique globally because it gives prominence to individuals' fundamental rights. She questioned, "If a woman wants to go into a temple, what legal injury is she causing to anyone?" She added that if the court rules otherwise, the world would be watching how the Supreme Court of India develops jurisprudence on women's rights.
Court's Response
Justice M M Sundresh disagreed with Jaising's line of argument. He asked whether an individual's right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) clashes with the right of a group of devotees or followers of a denomination, and whose right should prevail. He stated, "How do we enforce individual rights when it violates fundamental rights of others? Article 25(1) right of one cannot be pitted against another. If we agree with your submissions, it will lead to dangerous consequences. If each devotee goes to a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship in a different manner, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or denomination itself."
Justice B V Nagarathna agreed, saying, "It will lead to annihilation of religion, and we do not want to be a part of it. Matters of religion are not a subject on which either the court or the legislature can sit in judgment. It cannot be a matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience."
Justice A Amanullah asked whether a practice or custom that has crystallized over centuries should be removed by a court to ensure a person enters a temple despite knowing it would hurt the religious feelings of the majority of followers of the denomination. Arguments will continue on Thursday.
