The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to revisit its three-decade-old ruling that "Hinduism is a way of life," as a nine-judge bench dealt with the sensitive issue of faith versus fundamental rights arising from the quashing of a Sabarimala Ayyappa temple custom barring women aged 10-50 from entry.
As counsel after counsel questioned various religious practices under Hinduism and favored identification of essential religious practices that alone could get constitutional protection, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan, and J Bagchi, said the court should not be the forum to determine ideal religious practices.
Justice Nagarathna remarked, "As far as Hinduism is concerned, the court had long back settled that it is a way of life. We need not reiterate it nor revisit it."
Court Should Carve Out Space for Dissenters: Senior Advocate
This remark came when senior advocate G Mohan Gopal argued that the court was interpreting the interplay of Article 25, which gives individuals the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and Article 26, which confers religious rights on denominations. Gopal said the court should carve out space for dissenters within denominations to enable reforms, which are currently stifled. The bench disagreed, with Justice Nagarathna stating, "Whether a person goes to a temple or not for worship is neither a qualification nor disqualification in Hinduism."
CJI Kant added, "Hinduism is flexible and accommodates myriad ways of worship without forcing anyone to go to a temple. A person who goes to a temple is as much a Hindu as the person who quietly lights a lamp in his small hut with a silent prayer." He emphasized that the Supreme Court is not a super-spiritual leader to interpret religious practices, and reform is primarily in the hands of the legislature.
Background of the 'Hinduism is a Way of Life' Ruling
The "Hinduism is a way of life" ruling by a three-judge bench came on a petition challenging a Bombay High Court judgment that quashed the election of Shiv Sena candidate Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo on the ground that party supremo Bal Thackeray appealed for votes in the name of religion. Upholding the disqualification, the bench led by Justice J S Verma had said, "Thus, it cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the constitution bench decisions of this court, that 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."
Arguments on Religious Rights
Gopal argued that faith in God should not be replaced with faith in clergy, which is increasingly happening, and referred to Ambedkar's proposal on religious rights in August 1947 before the Constituent Assembly to suggest that the right to convert should be elevated as a fundamental right. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected, stating that this proposal was rejected after debate. Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan said, "While courts may be entitled to interpret the law in such a manner that the rights existing in the blueprint (Constitution) have expansive connotations, the court cannot impose additional restrictions by using tools of interpretation." He advocated a nuanced approach to maintain the identity and purpose of individual and denominational religious rights.
