Most difficult task for court is to declare beliefs of millions wrong: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would be one of the most difficult tasks for a court to declare the beliefs of millions wrong or erroneous, as Travancore Devaswom Board, which managed the historic Sabarimala temple in Kerala, contended that religion is a set of beliefs and practices followed by a denomination with a broadly similar identity and the court cannot sit in judgement of that belief.

While hearing review petitions in the Sabarimala case, a nine judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also said that social welfare cannot be used to hollow out religion.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi for the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) argued that while Article 25(2)(b) can be claimed by all sects of Hindus, to demand entry to a Hindu religious institution of public character, the religious denomination will have the right under Article 26(b) to regulate how the inner rituals must be performed. He favoured for a harmonious interpretation of Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26(b).

The bench also comprised Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

During the hearing, the bench asked Singhvi why Article 25(2)(b) used the phrase "social reform" instead of the words "public order, morality, or health", which are used in the opening of Article 25. Justice Sundresh said that the Hindu Succession Act could be an example of social reform.

The CJI said that social welfare and reform are preserved by the Constitution. Justice Nagarathna observed, "In the name of social welfare and reform, you cannot hollow out the religion." Singhvi agreed with Justice Nagarathna's observation.

Singhvi also addressed the issue raised in the reference, whether the court can entertain a PIL questioning a religious practice when the petitioner does not belong to that religion. He contended that courts should adopt a very high threshold for entertaining such PILs.

Singhvi said PILs by third parties cannot suddenly question the traditions followed for centuries in temples like Sabarimala and Guruvayoor. He stressed that PILs questioning regular religious practices cannot be entertained on the ground of violation of rights.

Justice Nagarathna observed that a PIL should not be entertained for the simple reason that the person who filed it is not a believer and not an aggrieved party. Singhvi said religion is the faith of millions, and a third party is enabled by direct access to Article 32 of the Constitution to change it. He asked why, in 70-80 years of our Republic it never happened?

Singhvi said that the court cannot decide the validity of a religious practice in a PIL without hearing the believers. Justice Sundresh observed, "Can the court decide the issue without hearing the representative of the millions, and where is the mechanism to hear them?" He further asked, "How can the decision be made binding on them?"

The CJI said, "the most difficult task for a court might be how to give a declaration that belief of millions of people is wrong or erroneous".