‘Not good for Hinduism’: Supreme Court questions exclusion from temples, maths

New Delhi: Everybody must have access to all temples and 'maths' and excluding a denomination will negatively affect Hinduism and divide the society, the Supreme Court on Thursday said.

The remark by a nine-judge bench Constitution bench came while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.

The bench comprises 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.

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for organisations including the Nair Service Society, Ayyappa Seva Samajam, and Kshetra Samrakshana Samiti, submitted that a denominational temple can give permissive rights and have worship or confine it only to the denomination.

At this juncture, Justice Nagarathna remarked, "There is one apprehension. If you say the right of entry, in the context of Venkataramana Devaru, where they said anybody other than Gowda Saraswat Brahmin is excluded, it will affect negatively Hinduism."

She added, "Everybody must have access to every temple and math. Keep aside the controversy in Sabarimala judgement. But if you say it is a practice and it is a matter of religion that I will exclude others and only my section, my denomination will attend temple and nobody else. That is not good for Hinduism. Let the religion not be adversely affected. It will be counter productive for the denomination." Concurring, Justice Kumar said such exclusion will divide the society.

Vaidyanathan submitted that if temples serve only their denomination, they cannot seek funds either from the state or private donors or from the public because they are not dependent on them.

If a law is to be made, it has to pass the test of public order, morality or health, he asserted.

In Devaru judgment, the top court had upheld the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, affirming that while the temple remains open to all Hindus, certain ceremonial practices reserved for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins are constitutionally permissible.

The nine-judge bench has framed seven questions on the scope of religious freedom.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict, lifted a ban that prevented women aged between 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala, and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Later, on November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench.

The bench framed broad issues on freedom across religions, saying they cannot be decided without any facts of the particular case.