The Supreme Court rebuked an advocate in the Sabarimala reference hearing for irrelevant submissions, saying he was going beyond the subject and must confine arguments to the issue. The Court also said, “Please don’t argue like this,” during proceedings.
The Supreme Court slammed an advocate for making irrelevant and extraneous submissions during the Sabarimala reference hearing.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench made this observation while hearing petitions challenging discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and addressing the scope of religious freedom across multiple faiths.
The Bench comprised Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
9-judge bench repeatedly asked Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay to stay focused on the issues before the court.
While making his submissions, Upadhyay argued that ‘Dharma’ is greater than religion, as the latter is a source of conflicts.
He contended that,
“Bharat was divided into 25 pieces in the last 2000 years due to denominational conflicts, and in the last 200 years, Bharat was divided into 7 countries.”
He observed that every action leads to a corresponding reaction and said the court must weigh the possible consequences of its ruling.
He presented it as a long-term choice for the country whether it develops into a scientifically advanced and well-integrated nation like China, Singapore, or Japan, or moves towards conditions similar to Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh.
He further stated that Articles 25 and 26 are framed in restrictive language, and argued that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 is not even found in some Western constitutions that influenced India’s constitutional framework.
He also said that Upadhyay stated that Sanskrit has more letters than English and claimed that Dr. Ambedkar introduced a bill to make it the official language.
He added that there is no equivalent English word for “Samvidhan,” which he attributed to limitations in the English language contending it has only 26 letters while Sanskrit has 52.
Further arguing that Dharma also does not have an accurate English term, he added,
“So, when we interpret things in English, it will be very difficult,”
He then said that he had filed a PIL seeking to introduce Dharma in primary school education.
He further stated that the tradition of addressing judges as “Your Lordship” comes from the tradition of “Panch Parameshwar.”
He then argued that all religions are not equal. To support his submission, he placed copies of the Ramayan, Vishnu Purana, and Bhagavad Gita before the bench and submitted that none of these texts states that a person who does not follow them will go to hell.
At that point, Justice Mahadevan interjected,
“You are going beyond the subject being discussed by everyone of us. You said there are 52 alphabets in Sanskrit; similarly, Tamil has 247 letters. Don’t go into all those areas. Confine yourself to the point in issue,”
Upadhyay then proceeded to set out his conclusions, submitting that the Sabarimala temple carries a unique sanctity and that the restriction on entry for women aged between 10 and 50 years is a reasonable classification.
He further argued that while Dharma allows freedom of thought, religion does not operate in the same way.
At this point, Justice Nagarathna intervened, noting that each religion has its own understanding of Dharma and emphasizing that no religion can be regarded as superior to another. She further made it clear that the Court would not engage in comparative evaluation of religious doctrines or enter into such discussions.
Responding to this, Upadhyay stated,
“All religions don’t give the Vasudaivaka Kutumbakam concept, to which he was immediately cautioned.
Justice Sundresh firmly told him,
“Please don’t argue like this,”
Upadhyay continued to assert his position, describing it as a “bitter truth,” which led to a firmer response from the Bench.
Justice Amanullah stepped in and firmly objected, making it clear that the counsel needed to understand the limited scope of the matter before the Court and that such arguments were not relevant to the issue being considered.
Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju argued that in matters involving interpretation of religious rights, the position of non-believers is not relevant.
He maintained that for a believer, religious practices and scriptural injunctions take precedence, stating,
“For a religious person, Dharmic values that my rituals or my religious texts prescribe are paramount. Someone who is an atheist or a non-believer would have to be discarded (even going by Supreme Court case laws) when you are testing my faith, my rights,”
Earlier, the top court observed that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to lay down the parameters to determine whether a particular practice of a religious denomination is essential or non-essential.
The present proceedings are rooted in earlier landmark developments. In 2018, the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the restriction on entry of women aged 10 to 50 at Sabarimala, declaring the practice unconstitutional.
Later, in 2019, a Bench headed by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred broader questions concerning discrimination in religious practices across different faiths to a larger bench, noting that such issues require deeper constitutional examination beyond individual cases.