Right to manage religious institution can't mean absence of structure: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the right to manage a religious institution cannot mean absence of structure and there has to be a modality and norms devised for its functioning.

A nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that there cannot be anarchy, as the court took up 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 also comprised 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 Chisti Nizami lineage associated with dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia, submitted that a dargah is a place where a saint is buried.

"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."

"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," Pasha said.

He contended that the right to regulate entry in a religious institution is part of management.

At this juncture, Justice Amanullah said the right to manage cannot mean absence of structure and for everything, there has to be a modality.

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, the bench said.

"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," Justice Amanullah said, adding that every institution must have norms and it cannot be individually determined by each person.

The court earlier said it was very difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to define parameters to declare a particular practice of a religious denomination as essential and non-essential.

During the hearing, the court came down heavily upon lawyer, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, one of the intervenors in the case, when he submitted that Dharma and religion are not same, and all religions are also not same. Entire world is burning due to religious conflict, he contended.

On this, Justice R Mahadevan, one of the judges in the bench, said, "You are going beyond the subject and issue being discussed by every one of us."