Judicial misadventure by apex court

The questions posed by the three-member judge bench borders on judicial arrogance, constitutional ignorance and disrespect to the customs and beliefs of an ancient religion. The ancient knowledge, norms & practices of a place of worship are not open to scrutiny and the direction by the Supreme Court. If questioning Islamic religious customs is considered blasphemous, why doesn’t questioning of Hindu religious customs amount to blasphemy?

The Supreme Court of India questioning the Travancore Deveaswom Board on its right of admission and refusal of entry to woman between 10 to 50 years of age into sanctum sanatorium of Sabarimala Ayappa Temple is certainly a judicial misadventure, which transgresses into the centuries-old religious customs, rituals & rights of Hindu religion.

The questions posed by the three-member judge bench also borders on judicial arrogance, constitutional ignorance & disrespect to the customs, beliefs of an ancient religion. Sabarimala Ayappa Temple is an ancient temple and has been in existence for over 1,500 years, centuries before the constitution of this nation as Republic of India.

The ancient knowledge, norms & practices of a place of worship this ancient are not open to scrutiny & direction by the Supreme Court of India. Questioning religious customs on the basis of logic is bankruptcy of religious & cultural origins of its practice. Not everything in an ancient religion is within the realms of modern logic & social evolution and it necessarily need not be meaningful in present social context.

Seeking evidence for a religious custom being practised for centuries amounts to questioning the sheer existence of the same. It can also be considered as an insult to the religious doctrine of Hindus. Why should Hindus have to prove anything related to their religious faith, to anyone?
If questioning Islamic religious customs is considered blasphemous, why doesn’t questioning of Hindu religious customs amount to blasphemy?
The Indian Constitution provides for complete religious freedom.

It also provides for practising a religion in full letter & spirit of its customs and traditions through the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted in 1976. The Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. Unlike western democracies like where parliament-enacted laws are above all religious laws, and the state does not recognise any religion, Indian Constitution recognises all religions to be equal, and provides for individual religious laws be above board. This subtle difference in the concept of secularism in India is key factor for consideration.

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly define the relationship between religion and state anywhere, nor does the Indian law. The laws implicitly require the state and its branches to recognise and accept all religions, enforce religious laws, and respect pluralism. If the Supreme Court can question ancient Hindu religious customs, rituals & traditions, it should have the spine to question other religion’s customs, rituals & traditions, too.

However, there’s no precedence of Supreme Court questioning the Muslim Law Board on many contentious issues pertaining to utter discrimination of women, whether it’s hijab, divorce or polygamy. Judicial activism should not be overtly misplaced and misdirected only to be disrespectful towards one religion, even if it might seem to be in the larger interests. Judiciary shouldn’t be carried away with limited understanding of contemporary gender freedoms and compare them with ancient religious customs, based on centuries of tradition & practice.

If the Supreme Court wishes to intervene and direct the religious practices of Hinduism, it must start by directing the parliament to move an amendment to the Constitution scrapping all religious boards and implementing the uniform civil code in India. In the present form, the Indian Constitution does not provide for judiciary to interfere in religious customs and practices. Sabarimala Ayappa Temple customs & traditions issue is clearly out of jurisdiction for Supreme Court of India. (The author is a spokesperson of BJP and an organizational strategist & an author)