Roads cannot be blocked in name of religious activities, govt can interfere: Supreme Court

New Delhi: Commenting that roads cannot be blocked in the name of religious activities, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said a denomination has the autonomy in the manner of worship and the court cannot sit in judgment over its religious affairs, but if a secular activity is being affected, the government can interfere with its rights.

The observation of a nine-judge 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 the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.

The bench comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) 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.

On the ninth day of the hearing, advocate Akshay Nagarajan, representing the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha in the court, submitted that the government cannot interfere with a religious denomination's rights by citing grounds under Article 25(2)(a).

Article 25(2)(a) of the Constitution empowers the State to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practices.

Nagarajan said the protection under Article 25 is not confined merely to matters of religious belief and extends equally to outward manifestations of faith, including rituals, observances, ceremonies and practices associated with the worship of a particular deity.

The submissions led Justice Nagarathna to observe that the State can step in if a secular activity is affected by religious activities.

"Suppose there is a temple, they want to have an annual festival, like you have the annual cart or chariot festival. You cannot block all the roads around the temple. That has nothing to do with religion. You do your religious activity, but not by blocking the roads. The State can always step in to regulate," she said.

Justice Nagarathna asserted that while the court cannot sit in judgment over the religious affairs of a denomination as autonomy has been given to the denomination under the Constitution, when secular activities are affected, the State can always interfere.

"Suppose they say they have a particular way of worship. That is the autonomy which is given in the manner of worship. Court cannot sit in judgment and say, no this cannot be done. But if a secular activity is also affected, then the State can step in to regulate," the judge said.

Nagarajan contended that secular rights can be taken care of under Article 26(d).

Article 26(d) of the Constitution guarantees religious denominations the right to administer their own movable and immovable properties in accordance with law.

During the hearing, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay submitted that "Bharat" was divided into 25 pieces in the last 2,000 years due to denominational conflicts and in the last 200 years, it was divided into seven countries.

He argued that there is no proper word in English for "Samvidhan" due to the limitations of the language, which has only 26 alphabets compared to 52 in Sanskrit.

At this juncture, Justice Mahadevan said, "You are going beyond the subject being discussed by everyone of us. You said there are 52 alphabets in Sanskrit. Similarly, Tamil has 247 letters. Do not go into all those areas. Confine yourself to the point in issue."

Observing that there cannot be anarchy, the top court earlier in the day said the right to manage a religious institution cannot mean the absence of a structure and there has to be a modality and norms devised for its functioning.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing in the court for Peerzada Syed Altamash Nizami, a 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.

"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 to a religious institution is part of management.

At this juncture, Justice Amanullah said the right to manage cannot mean the absence of a 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.

"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 hearing will resume on Wednesday.