New Delhi: Supreme Court on Thursday verbally observed that "everybody must have access to all temples". Justice BV Nagarathna, the only woman on a nine-member bench examining legal and constitutional questions touching upon religious practices, said if someone is denied access to a temple on grounds of religion, "that is not good for Hinduism".
"Everybody must have access, keep aside the Sabarimala controversy, to every temple and matha. If you say it is a matter of religion that only my section must attend my temple and no one else, that is not good for Hinduism," justice Nagarathna remarked.
The bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant, continued for the third day 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.
Justice Aravind Kumar added: "We will be dividing the society."
Justice Nagarathna clarified that she was not speaking of Sabarimala per se. "Keep aside Sabarimala. Generally, if you say people only of Gowda Saraswat Brahmins must come to a temple, followers of Kanchi matha must only go to Kanchi, they should not go to Sringeri, followers of Sringeri must not go elsewhere..."
The bench made the observation after senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the Nair Service Society and religious organisations from Kerala, presented his case.
Vaidyanathan contended that Article 26(b), which gives the right to a religious denomination to manage its own affairs, would prevail over Article 25(2)(b) that allows the state to make law for reform within a religion or to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of public character to all sections of Hindus.
Justice Nagarathna orally observed that while Hinduism does not impose a rigid denominational structure, devotees visiting a particular temple are required to adhere to the sampradayas, or customs, associated with that temple.
The Centre told SC that restriction at Sabarimala was not based solely on gender. To support this contention, solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that some temples restrict entry for men as well.
The 2018 SC judgment permitting access to women of all age groups to Sabarimala had proceeded on an assumption that men were considered superior and that women were on a lower pedestal, Mehta said.
"I have given instances of temples where men are not allowed. Because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple, there are certain faiths and beliefs. There are temples, details of which I have mentioned, where male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of female devotees. There are temples like the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed (in the inner sanctum)," Mehta added. There is also a temple in Kerala where the system is that men go dressed as women, he said. "So, it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric," he said.
"Everybody must have access, keep aside the Sabarimala controversy, to every temple and matha. If you say it is a matter of religion that only my section must attend my temple and no one else, that is not good for Hinduism," justice Nagarathna remarked.
The bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant, continued for the third day 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.
Justice Aravind Kumar added: "We will be dividing the society."
Justice Nagarathna clarified that she was not speaking of Sabarimala per se. "Keep aside Sabarimala. Generally, if you say people only of Gowda Saraswat Brahmins must come to a temple, followers of Kanchi matha must only go to Kanchi, they should not go to Sringeri, followers of Sringeri must not go elsewhere..."
The bench made the observation after senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the Nair Service Society and religious organisations from Kerala, presented his case.
Vaidyanathan contended that Article 26(b), which gives the right to a religious denomination to manage its own affairs, would prevail over Article 25(2)(b) that allows the state to make law for reform within a religion or to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of public character to all sections of Hindus.
Justice Nagarathna orally observed that while Hinduism does not impose a rigid denominational structure, devotees visiting a particular temple are required to adhere to the sampradayas, or customs, associated with that temple.
The Centre told SC that restriction at Sabarimala was not based solely on gender. To support this contention, solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that some temples restrict entry for men as well.
The 2018 SC judgment permitting access to women of all age groups to Sabarimala had proceeded on an assumption that men were considered superior and that women were on a lower pedestal, Mehta said.
"I have given instances of temples where men are not allowed. Because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple, there are certain faiths and beliefs. There are temples, details of which I have mentioned, where male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of female devotees. There are temples like the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed (in the inner sanctum)," Mehta added. There is also a temple in Kerala where the system is that men go dressed as women, he said. "So, it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric," he said.
