The Supreme Court raised a key constitutional question on whether devotees can be denied the right to touch a deity based on birth or status. The issue came up during the ongoing hearing in the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple case on religious freedom and equality.
In a significant development in the long-running debate over religious freedom and equality, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday raised a crucial constitutional question during the hearing of matters connected to the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple entry issue.
The Court questioned whether a devotee, who holds complete faith and devotion, can be denied the right to touch a deity purely based on birth or other conditions, and whether such a situation would require constitutional protection.
The matter is being heard by a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
The bench is examining larger constitutional questions related to discrimination in places of worship and the extent of religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution across different faiths.
During the proceedings, the Court engaged with submissions made on behalf of the temple’s chief priest (thantri). Senior advocate V Giri argued that rituals and ceremonies followed in a temple form an essential part of religious practice and must be respected as such. He emphasized that worshippers are expected to align themselves with the nature and characteristics of the deity they seek to worship.
“When a devotee goes to a temple for worship, it can’t be in antagonism to the characteristics of a deity because its for the purpose of worshipping the deity. The devotee surrenders to the divine spirit contained in the deity. He/she has to accept the essential characteristics of the deity,”
Giri said.
However, the bench raised a fundamental constitutional concern. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned whether such restrictions could override an individual’s fundamental rights, especially when the devotee approaches the deity with complete faith and purity.
“When I go to a temple, my fundamental belief is that he is the Lord, he is my creator, he has created me, right? “I go there with one hundred percent belief. I am totally devoted, absolutely nothing impure in my heart. And there, I am told that because of a birth, a lineage, a certain situation, permanently you are not allowed to touch the deity. Now, will the Constitution not come to the rescue? Justice Amanullah remarked, adding that there cannot be a difference between the creator and creation.”
Responding to this, Giri explained that if there is a blanket restriction preventing individuals from becoming priests solely based on birth, such issues can be addressed either through legislation under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution or through state intervention.
“If priest means the person who is instructed in the ‘Shastras’ as to how to conduct worship and how to worship the deity, if there is a complete ban on any person becoming a priest and then doing the ‘seva’, as we call it, only by reason of birth, that will be taken care of either by a Article 25(2)(b) legislation or it will be taken care of by the State itself,” he said.
He further argued that the concept of “Naishtika Brahmachari” (a deity who is a perpetual celibate) is central to the identity of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala, and the rituals practiced at the temple are aligned with this belief. According to him, the nature of the deity itself may justify certain restrictions.
“I have a right to practice my religion under Article 25 of the Constitution…If the characteristics of the deity are as such that its not possible for me to go there, if I am a woman, it has to be in sync with the characteristics of the religion. The characteristic of the deity in sofar as Sabarimala is concerned contemplates that the deity is a permanent celibate,”
Giri said.
He also contended that the petitioners challenging the practice have failed to provide sufficient material to prove that the concept of “Naishtika Brahmachari” is either incorrect or not an essential religious practice.
The hearing forms part of a broader constitutional examination initiated after earlier judgments. In its landmark 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court had, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the restriction on entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple, declaring it unconstitutional.
Subsequently, in 2019, a five-judge bench referred larger questions regarding discrimination at places of worship to a nine-judge bench for authoritative determination.
Earlier this month, the Court also observed that denominational practices are open to judicial review and emphasized that judges must decide such sensitive matters by rising above personal religious beliefs and adhering strictly to constitutional values such as equality, dignity, and freedom of conscience.
As the hearing continues, the case is expected to play a crucial role in defining the balance between essential religious practices and fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, particularly in matters involving gender equality and access to places of worship.
Click Here to Read More On Sabarimala
