SC Questions Judicial Scrutiny of Worship Modes in Sabarimala Case
Supreme Court prima facie agrees devotees' right to decide manner of worship is non-justiciable, appearing to conflict with earlier judgment that quashed temple's women entry ban
L'essentiel
- The Supreme Court has indicated that devotees' right to decide the mode and manner of worshipping God may be non-justiciable, seemingly contradicting its earlier judgment that quashed the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple's custom barring women aged 10-50.
- The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, appeared to agree with senior advocate J Muth Raj's argument that courts cannot scrutinise the essentiality of various religious practices in Hinduism.
- Multiple justices emphasized that conscience and faith are private to individuals, with Justice Sundresh stating that the manner of worship is part of conscience and a space private to the devotee and God.
Résumé généré par IA
Pourquoi c'est important
The Supreme Court had previously quashed the Sabarimala temple's custom of barring women in the 10-50 age group. The current hearing appears to revisit that position by questioning whether courts can examine the mode and manner of religious worship at all.
NEW DELHI: In a significant statement, apparently in conflict with the judgment that quashed the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple’s custom of barring entry of women in the 10-50 age group, the Supreme Court on Thursday prima facie agreed that devotees’ right to decide the mode and manner of worshipping God was non-justiciable. SC’s remark came following senior advocate J Muth Raj’s argument that in Hinduism, every village had a ‘gram devta’, every family had a ‘kul devta’ and ‘ishta devta’, all of whom were worshipped differently, and it was impossible for the court to scrutinise the essentiality of such practices while tracing it to the umbrella religion. Conscience and faith private to individuals: SC The bench hearing the Sabarimala case comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanulla, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi. CJI Kant and Justices Nagarathna, Sundresh, Kumar and Mahadevan, through their observations, appeared to agree that it would be difficult for the court to put its judicial lens to examine the validity of the mode and manner a devotee chooses to worship God. Raj asked that as no religious text prescribed such worship, what would be the baseline for the judicial scrutiny? The CJI and Justice Nagarathna said conscience and faith were private to an individual. Justice Sundresh said, “Article 25 rights protect a believer from a non-believer. It gives importance to the conscience of a person to practise, profess and propagate religion. The manner of worship is part of conscience and a space private to the devotee and God. This cannot be given a restrictive meaning.” Justice Mahadevan added, “Faith is faith. Its validity can’t be tested.” All major religious communities represented by senior advocates N K Kaul, K Radhakrishnan, Krishnan Venugopal, Guru Krishna Kumar, Shyam Divan and Arvind Datar — argued in unison that long-standing customs, as in the Sabarimala temple, were based on faith and were non-justiciable.
Questions ouvertes
- Will the Supreme Court formally overturn its earlier Sabarimala judgment?
- How will this affect other pending religious customs cases?
- What is the baseline for judicial scrutiny if worship modes are non-justiciable?
