Supreme Court’s Crucial Observation
The Supreme Court of India has made a significant observation while hearing the Sabarimala temple case, stating that it is “not easy to disprove the faith of millions.”
A 9-judge Constitution Bench is currently examining complex constitutional questions related to religious traditions and fundamental rights.
Debate Over Religious Traditions
The bench is considering multiple issues arising from the controversy over women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple.
One of the key questions is whether individuals who are not followers of a particular religion or sect can challenge its traditions in court.
Singhvi Argues Against Third-Party Challenges
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued that courts should exercise strict caution while entertaining public interest litigations in religious matters.
He emphasized that:
Courts should not decide on religious traditions without hearing those who follow them.
He further stated that different sects within a religion may have their own customs, which should not be easily interfered with.
Court Raises Hypothetical Scenario
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a hypothetical question—whether courts should intervene if a religious leader encourages harmful practices like mass suicide.
Singhvi responded that such extreme situations would justify judicial intervention in public interest.
Judges Highlight Complexity
Justice B V Nagarathna observed that petitions challenging religious traditions by non-adherents may not always be maintainable.
Meanwhile, Justice M M Sundaresh questioned how courts can rule on matters affecting millions without hearing them.
Faith vs Fundamental Rights
The case highlights the ongoing debate between faith and constitutional rights, with the court acknowledging the sensitivity and complexity involved in adjudicating such issues.
The Constitution Bench is expected to continue hearing the matter in the coming days.
Leave a comment