New Delhi: Midway through the 'faith vs fundamental right' debate arising from the customary ban on entry of women aged 10-50 into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, a Hindu party on Tuesday requested a nine-judge Supreme Court bench to review its 30-year-old judgment declaring Hinduism as a 'way of life'.
Articulating the objection to the ruling in the 1996 Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo judgment by a three-judge bench that Hinduism 'may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more', the lawyer for the Hindu party said Hinduism is not merely a way of life, but an oceanic confluence and assimilation of an infinite number of distinct religious beliefs and faiths.
During the ninth day of proceedings before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan, and J Bagchi, advocate D V Singh argued that to determine what constitutes an essential Hindu religious practice, the court must first define 'Hinduism and Hindu Dharma'. He suggested the court could take the help of the Bhagavad Gita for this purpose.
This mirrored senior advocate M R Shamshad's request on Thursday to the same nine-judge bench to review the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment by a five-judge bench, which while rejecting the challenge to government acquisition of the then-disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, had ruled that a mosque is not essential for offering namaz. Shamshad argued that the masjid is the spirit of Islam and constitutes a core belief of Muslims.
In the Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo judgment, the Supreme Court had said: 'When we think of Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.'
The court further stated: 'Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind, and it is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. The words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.'
In the Ismail Faruqui judgment, the Supreme Court had ruled: 'A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition (of the disputed site) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.'
