Will Constitution not come to rescue of believer, not allowed to touch deity: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the chief priest of the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple if the Constitution will not come to the rescue of a believer, who is denied the right to touch the deity.

The remark by the top court's nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was made after the chief priest -- during the hearing -- said that when a devotee goes to a temple for worship, it can't be in antagonism to the characteristics of a deity.

The court is hearing a batch of review 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.

Senior advocate V Giri, representing the temple's thantri, submitted to the top court that the rituals and ceremonies form an integral part of religion and constitute essential religious practice.

"A devotee visiting a temple must accept the essential characteristics of the deity. When a devotee goes to a temple for worship, it can't be in antagonism to the characteristics of a deity because its for the purpose of worshipping the deity. The devotee surrenders to the divine spirit contained in the deity. He/she has to accept the essential characteristics of the deity," Giri said.

He said that the Sabarimala deity is a "Naishtika Brahmachari" or perennial celibate, and all ceremonies at the temple are in sync with this characteristic. "The petitioners challenging the restriction have failed to show that this concept is ill-founded or does not form an essential part of the religion," he said.

Upon this, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked, "When I go to a temple, my fundamental belief is that he is the Lord, he is my creator, he has created me, right?

"I go there with one hundred percent belief. I am totally devoted, absolutely nothing impure in my heart. And there, I am told that because of a birth, a lineage, a certain situation, permanently you are not allowed to touch the deity. Now, will the Constitution not come to the rescue,'' Justice Amanullah asked, adding that there cannot be a difference between the creator and creation.

To this, Giri replied that if there is a complete ban on anybody becoming a priest, then that will be taken care of either by Article 25(2)(b) legislation or it will be taken care of by the State itself.

He clarified that if priest means the person who is instructed in the 'Shastras' as to how to conduct worship and how to worship the deity, if there is a complete ban on any person becoming a priest and then doing the 'seva', as we call it, only by reason of birth, that will be taken care of either by Article 25(2)(b) legislation or it will be taken care of by the State itself.

During hearing, another judge Justice B V Nagarathna highlighted about Agamas principles, referring to the practices to deities in specific shrines, as in some Shiva temples, one can offer water on the lingam and in others, one cannot touch at all. "Not because of who you are. Because of what the anushthana of that temple requires,'' she said.

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

The hearing in the matter would continue on Wednesday.