Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court on Wednesday orally commented that it is difficult for a Court to declare the faith of millions of people wrong.On the fourth day of the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi was addressing the 9-judge bench on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board.Dealing with the seventh issue raised in the reference -whether the Court can entertain a Public Interest Litigation questioning a religious practice at the instance of a person not belonging to that religion- Singhvi advocated that the Courts should adopt a very high threshold to entertain such PILs.Singhvi said that traditions followed for centuries in temples like Sabarimala and Guruvayoor cannot be suddenly questioned in PILs filed by third parties."You have a supposed PIL petitioner coming and saying that look my belief is that this religious practice is not a good religious practice. Now, the chap who has the right under Article 25 is not the challenger and the government who could intrude my right by public order, health or whatever is not the respondent, but me and the government are respondents to the PIL's claim that, according to an objective PIL collective consciousness standard, this religious practice is bad. That completely destroys the very concept," Singhvi said.At this juncture, Justice Bagchi posed a hypothetical query - if a religious leader preaches mass suicide as a method to attain salvation, and the followers are attempting to end their lives, can't the Court act on a PIL filed by a person not belonging to that sect questioning that practice.Saying that it was an "extreme case", Singhvi said that the Court may perhaps be justified in entertaining such a PIL in extraordinary circumstances. But the ordinary rule should be one of non-interference. The Chief Justice said that in such an extreme case, the Court might even act suo motu, without waiting for a PIL.Conceding that he was not arguing for an absolute bar of PIL, Singhvi said that PILs questioning regular religious practices cannot be entertained on the ground of violation of rights. He added that he has placed a chart of 23 similar judgments which were filed by adherents of the concerned religion. "PIL should not become a vehicle for interpreting a religious practice or its violation," Singhi averred.He advocated that the threshold for PILs in religious affairs should be ten times higher than for other PILs.Justice Nagarathna said that the Court will decline a PIL questioning a religious practice on the simple ground that the aggrieved person has not come before it. It will be dismissed on the ground that it has been filed by a third party, an interloper, Justice Nagarathna said.Singhvi said that the Court cannot decide the validity of a religious practice in a PIL without hearing the believers. "Religion is collectivity [and] faith of millions, a third party [should not be] able to direct access to Article 32 to change it," he said."Can the Court decide without hearing the representatives of millions?" Justice Sundresh asked."Believer will not question it. Who is this, who is the petitioner? ...It should not be entertained for the simple reason that such a person who files the PIL is not a believer, is not an aggrieved party...," Justice Nagarathna said."The most difficult task for a Court is how to give a declaration that the belief of millions of people is wrong or erroneous," CJI Surya Kant said. Singhvi said this is what actually happens in a PIL.Last week, the Court had questioned how the PIL filed by non-devotees could have been entertained in the Sabarimala matter.Singhvi argued that the Sabarimala issue cannot be decided in abstract constitutional terms without understanding the unique religious character of the deity and the temple. He emphasised that the facts surrounding the worship of Lord Ayyappa are integral to assessing the legality of the practice under Articles 14 and 15.He submitted that the Sabarimala temple is distinct because it worships Lord Ayyappa in the specific form of a Naisthika Brahmachari, meaning an eternal celibate who has renounced the grihastha ashram. According to him, the temple's identity, reverence, and rituals are fundamentally rooted in this conception of celibacy and austerity, which is reflected in the requirement that devotees observe a 41-day vratam before undertaking the pilgrimage.Addressing the equality challenge, Singhvi contended that the practice does not amount to a total exclusion of women, since women below 10 years and above 50 years are permitted entry. Therefore, the restriction is not based on gender per se but on a specific age-based classification within women. He argued that such classification can be constitutionally valid if it bears a direct and rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, namely, preserving the essential identity and manifestation of the deity as an eternal celibate.He further maintained that women in the restricted...

Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

'Can a Court declare a religious faith wrong without hearing the millions of followers?' asked the bench during the heraing.

Tags