SHOULD COURT DECIDE WHO CAN ENTER & WHO CANNOT?

In the Sabarimala judgment, the SC noted the importance of Article 25(1), right to freedom of religion, wherein by employing the expression ‘all persons’ it was held that, every person has legal right to enter and offer prayer. Deepak Mishra, CJI and A.M.Khanwilkar noted:

“Article 25(1), by employing the expression ‘all persons’, demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is available, though subject to the restrictions delineated in Article 25(1) itself, to every person including women. The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors specifically attributable to women.”

In the past the same court in Mulki temple case clarified that who can and cannot enter into a temple is a matter of religion. Justice Venkataram Aiyar reviewed ancient literature, the practice of Hindus, and the role of temples in that practice and concluded on behalf of the court that-

“Thus, under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter them for worship and where they are entitled to stand and worship and how the worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion.”

It has been multiple times stated by the Apex Court that in religious matters – no statutory authority has any jurisdiction to interfere in people’s belief and practices. Reference of ‘Shirur Matt’ case can be cited for example-

“As we have already indicated, freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down. Under Art. 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters.”

Another recent case where the CJI Khehar in case of Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017 9 SCC 1) held that-

“This wisdom emerging from judgments rendered by this Court is unambiguous namely, that while examining the issues falling in the realm of religious practices or Personal Law, it is not for a court to make a choice of something which it considers as forward-looking or non-fundamentalist. It is not for a court to determine whether religious practices were prudent or progressive or regressive. Religion and Personal Law, must be perceived, as it is accepted by the followers of the faith…”

SHOULD COURT INTERFERE INTO RELIGION?

– H. H. Jainacharya Yugbhushan Suriji [Pandit Maharaja]