Hinduism has room for all forms of belief: SC

 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought to dispel the notion about rigidity of Hinduism harboured in certain quarters and said it was the "collective wisdom and inspiration of the centuries" even as it delivered a landmark judgment saying the state could not have a say in who should be appointed a pujari (priest) in a temple.

"Religion incorporates the particular belief(s) that a group of people subscribe to. Hinduism, as a religion, incorporates all forms of belief without mandating the selection or elimination of any one single belief," a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana said. Deciding a petition by Adi Saiva Sivachariyagal Nala Sangam which had challenged a Tamil Nadu government order of 2006 deciding to take up appointment of priests to temples, the SC ruled that priests could be appointed as per norms prescribed by the scriptures so long as the selection did not violate the Constitution's cardinal non-discrimination mandate.

 The bench did a tightrope walk in maintaining the sanctity of religious customs in appointment of temple priests and not getting overawed by religious sensitivity by clarifying that selection of priests could not violate the basic constitutional mandate of non-discrimination on the grounds of caste, creed and gender. It also said right to freedom of religion included right to observe religious practices.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Gogoi said, "Requirement of constitutional conformity is inbuilt and if a custom or usage is outside the protective umbrella afforded and envisaged by Articles 25 and 26 (right to practice and profess any religion), the law will certainly take its own course. Constitutional legitimacy, naturally, must supersede all religious beliefs or practices." The bench also clarified that non-interference of the government in religious practices, in this case appointment of priests, did not mean the courts could not adjudicate disputes arising on the same issue.  "The exclusion of all 'outside authorities' from deciding what is an essential religious practice must be viewed in the context of the limited role of the state in matters relating to religious freedom as envisaged by Articles 25 and 26 and not of the courts as the arbiter of constitutional rights and principles," it said.

The court examined the effect of Article 16(5) of the Constitution, which excludes application of equal opportunity in matters of public employment in connection with the affairs of religious denominational institutions, to appointment of archakas (pujaris).  It said, "Exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as archakas would not violate Article 14 (right to equality) so long as such inclusion/exclusion is not based on the criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter."  "It is a religion that has no single founder, no single scripture and no single set of teachings. It has been described as Sanatan Dharma, namely, eternal faith, as it is the collective wisdom and inspiration of the centuries that Hinduism seeks to preach and propagate," it added.