Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the Sabarimala review case, arguing that courts should not decide essential religious practices. The nine-judge bench will hear the matter on April 7, focusing on the balance between religious freedom and equality.
The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has approached the Supreme Court in connection with the upcoming Sabarimala review proceedings and argued that courts should not decide what constitutes essential religious practices, as religion is a matter of faith and belief for followers.
The organisation has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court ahead of the final hearing to be conducted by a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on April 7.
The matter before the Court relates to issues of discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and the larger question regarding the scope and ambit of religious freedom under the Constitution for different faiths.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Stays ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ Project at Sabarimala Temple
The Sabarimala issue has been under legal debate since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 judgment, where a five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, lifted the ban on entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple.
The Court had held that the centuries-old practice restricting women of a particular age group from entering the temple was illegal and unconstitutional. This judgment led to widespread debate across the country on the balance between the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25.
Now, the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, which claims to be an umbrella body representing 127 sects of Sanatan Dharma and lakhs of priests and seers, has argued before the Supreme Court that the judiciary should not interfere in religious matters unless such practices directly affect public order, morality, or health. The intervention plea has been filed through advocate Atulesh Kumar.
In its plea, the organisation has stated that religion is based on faith and sacred beliefs, and therefore courts should not act as experts in determining essential religious practices. The plea clearly states,
“Religion is a matter of faith and religious beliefs are held to be sacred by those who share the same faith. Thought, faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are external manifestations thereof. the phrase ‘equally entitled to’, as it occurs in Article 25(1), must mean that each devotee is equally entitled to profess, practise and propagate his religion, as per the tenets of that religion,”.
The plea further argues that the judiciary should only interfere in religious matters in limited situations and not otherwise.
It states,
“The courts should not determine the essential religious practices because the court is not an expert in religious matters/practice. The courts should step in only when such religious practice violates public order, morality or health,”.
The organisation has also defended the traditional practice followed at the Sabarimala temple, stating that the restriction on entry of women of a particular age group is based on long-standing religious beliefs and traditions associated with the deity worshipped at the temple.
According to the plea, the deity Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala is worshipped as a “Naishtika Brahmachari,” which means a celibate, and devotees are required to follow a strict 41-day purification ritual before visiting the shrine.
The plea states that the tradition believes that maintaining these strict religious practices may be difficult for women of a particular age group, and therefore the restriction is part of a religious practice and not discrimination.
The plea also argues that this restriction cannot be seen as a complete ban on women, as it only applies to a specific age group and not to all women. Therefore, according to the organisation, the practice does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, and should instead be protected under Article 25, which guarantees the right to freely profess and practise religion.
Further, the plea points out that there are more than 1,000 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa across India where women are allowed to enter without any restriction. This, according to the organisation, shows that the restriction at Sabarimala is specific to that particular temple and is based on the essential religious practice and tradition of that shrine alone, and therefore deserves constitutional protection.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing on April 7 is expected to examine larger constitutional questions, including the balance between equality and religious freedom, the extent of judicial review in religious matters, and the scope of the essential religious practices doctrine.
The decision of the nine-judge Constitution Bench is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving religious practices and constitutional rights in India.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Ganga Iftar Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
