The Supreme Court said there can be no anarchy, noting that managing religious institutions cannot mean operating without structure, and emphasised the need for rules as the nine-judge Bench heard petitions on Sabarimala women’s entry and religious freedom.
Observing that there can be no anarchy, the Supreme Court said that the right to manage a religious institution cannot be understood as the absence of structure, and that there must be a framework and rules for its functioning.
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.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Peerzada Syed Altamash Nizami direct ancestral descendent in the Chisti Nizami lineage associated with the dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia submitted that a dargah is a place where a saint is buried.
He added,
“Within Islam, there are differing views regarding the status of saints after death, but in the Sufi system of belief, there is deep reverence attached to the place where a saint is interred.”
Pasha said,
“The Sufi system of belief in India consists of several major orders, including the Chishtiya, Qadriya, Naqshbandiya and Suhrawardiya. The present case concerns the Chishtiya order.This system, I submit, clearly constitutes a religious denomination. If one looks at the teachings attributed to Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya, there is emphasis on adherence to Islamic practices such as roza, namaz, hajj, zakat, and above all, faith,”
He argued that the right to regulate entry into a religious institution forms part of its management.
At this point, Justice Amanullah said that the right to manage cannot mean the absence of structure and that there must be a modality for everything.
Justice Amanullah said,
“There cannot be anarchy. Take a dargah or a temple. There will be elements associated with the institution, the manner of worship, the sequence in which things are done. Somebody has to regulate that.”
He added,
“It cannot be that everyone says I will do whatever I want, or that the gates remain open at all times without any control. So the question is, who is that body which manages. That is where protection comes in, because regulation is necessary. At the same time, it cannot transgress constitutional limitations. There cannot be discrimination on the broad constitutional parameters,”
He further added that every institution must have norms and that practices cannot be decided on an individual basis.
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.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, set-aside a ban that barred women aged between 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple.
It held that the long-standing Hindu religious custom was illegal and unconstitutional.