Source: https://mynation.net/docs/373-2006/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:46:41+00:00

Document:
by Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (for brevity, “the 1965 Act”) as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e) of the Constitution of India and further to pass directions for safety of women pilgrims. That apart, a prayer has also been made for laying guidelines in matters of general inequality related to religious practices in places of worship.
“40. The deity in Sabarimala temple is in the form of a Yogi or a Bramchari according to the Thanthri of the temple. He stated that there are Sasta temples at Achankovil, Aryankavu and Kulathupuzha, but the deities there are in different forms. Puthumana Narayanan Namboodiri, a Thanthrimukhya recognised by the Travancore Devaswom Board, while examined as C.W. 1 stated that God in Sabarimala is in the form of a Naisthik Bramchari. That, according to him, is the reason why young women are not permitted to offer prayers in the temple.
16. Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no religious custom or usage in the Hindu religion specially in Pampa river region to disallow women during menstrual period. According to him, banning entry of women would be against the basic tenets of Hindu religion. It is his assertion in the written note that Sabarimala Temple is not a separate religious denomination because (i) the religious practices performed in Sabarimala Temple at the time of ‘Puja’ and other religious ceremonies are not distinct and are akin to any other practice performed in any Hindu Temple; (ii) that it does not have its separate administration but is regulated by statutory Board constituted under Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950; (iii) that it is getting State funding out of Consolidated Fund under Article 290-A of the Constitution; (iv) that there is no particular follower of this temple except general Hindu followers visiting any temple; and (v) that mere attraction of some people for some temple does not make it a separate and distinct religious denomination. Learned counsel referring to the decision in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakhshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt2 would contend that what is protected under Article 26(b) is only the ‘essential part’ of religion. Relying on Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali3, it is urged by him that clauses (c) and (d) of Article 26 do not create any new right in favour of religious denomination but only safeguards their rights. Learned counsel contends that in the matters of managing religious affairs, all practices are not always sacrosanct, for there may be many ill practices like superstitions which in due course of time may be merely accretions to the basic theme of that religious denomination. It is put forth by him that entry to the temple is not essential to religion and there is difference between “regulation of entry” and “complete prohibition of entry”. Placing reliance on Sri Venkatramana Devaru & Ors. v. State of 2 1954 SCR 1005 3 (1962) 1 SCR 383 Mysore & Ors.4, learned counsel submits that the religious denomination cannot completely exclude the members of any community and may only restrict their entry in certain rituals. He further contends that the relevant Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that it bars entry of women as such an interpretation would invite violation of principles underlying gender equality. Mr. Gupta contends that the expression ‘at any stage of time’ occurring in Rule 3(b) has to be read narrowly which can be found in customs or usage like during late night if by any custom or usage women are not allowed to enter temple, the said custom or usage shall continue but it does not permit complete prohibition of entry of women.
18. Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned amicus curiae in his written note of submission has put forth that the judgment of the High Court of Kerala is founded on the religious practice and after detailed enquiry the view having taken by the High Court that the restriction imposed by the Devaswom Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the same should not set at naught in this petition for public interest litigation. His further argument is that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa could also be brought within the ambit of religious denomination who have been following the religious practice which has been essential part of religion. His stand is that this Court had no occasion to consider the important question, that is, what is religious practice on the basis of religious belief which would apply not only to Ayyappa temple but would also apply to all the prominent temples all over India and, therefore, the matter has to be decided by a Constitution Bench. According to the learned senior counsel, none of the cases cited at the Bar would govern the issue raised here, that is, protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not limited to the matters of doctrine or belief but also extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore, contains a guarantee for rituals and observations, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. The concept “essential part of religious practice” has to be decided by the Court with reference to the practices which are regarded by the large sections of the community for several centuries. It is propounded by him that a religious practice based on religious faith adhered to and followed by millions of Hindus for over a millennium in consonance with natural rights of men and women is not violative of Fundamental Rights without appreciating the scope of these rights.
19. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned amicus curiae, in his turn, contends that Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is a public temple, members of the public are admitted and its use as a place of public worship and entry thereto is not to any particular denomination or part thereof. The temple is managed and administered by a statutory body, i.e., the Travancore Devaswom Board. As entry to a public temple is a legal right but not a permissible right and, therefore, the temple authorities have no authority to curtail the said right. In this context, he has drawn inspiration from the authorities namely, Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar9, Sri Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner 9 (1956) SCR 756 of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa10 and Nar Hari v. Badri Nath Temple Committee11. It is his proponement that the right of a woman to visit and enter the temple as a devotee of the deity, as a believer in Hindu faith is an essential facet of her right and restriction of the present nature creates a dent in that right which is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25(1) establishes a non-discriminatory right and it is available to men and women professing the same faith, for it engulfs the concept of intra-faith parity. The distinction between entry into temples and right to conduct the worship of the deity as per ritualistic process of worship by an “Acharya” has been recognized to keep the constitutional norm at its pedestal. In this regard, he has commended few passages from Nar Hari (supra) and Shastri Yagnapurudasji (supra).
23. It is submitted by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel that Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution guarantee every person and community, the right and freedom to profess practice and propagate religion and manage its own affairs in matters of religion. It is settled that a religion not only lays down a code of ethical rules but may also prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship. These, when they constitute an integral/essential part of the religion is protected under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution. It is further urged by him that the administration of the temple vests with the Travancore Devaswom Board under the provisions of the Act and there is a statutory duty cast on the Devaswom Board to arrange worship in temples in accordance with the usage. Therefore, in matters of religion, it is the opinion of the priests that is final. It is also the contention that under ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into them for worship, where they are entitled to stand and worship and how worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion protected both under Article 25 and Article 26(b).
24. Mr. K. Parasaran and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for Devaswom Board submit that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable as no right affecting public at large is involved in the case. The religious questions posed in this Writ Petition can be determined finally only by the “Thanthri” concerned and not by other Thanthries who have no authority over the Sabarimala Temple; that worshippers visit the temple after observing penance for 41 days and usually ladies between the age of 10 and 50 will not be physically capable of observing “vratham” for 41 days on physiological grounds; that the rule that during these seasons no women aged more than 10 and less than 50 shall enter the temple is scrupulously followed and the Board, being a statutory authority, cannot forget the mandate laid down under Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution while administering the Temples under their control; that the Board cannot conceive of any religious practice under the Hindu Religion which deprives a worshipper of his right to enter the Temple and worship therein according to his belief; that notifications are issued by the Board during Mandalam, Makaravilakku and Vishu preventing women of the age group between 10 to 50 from entering the Temple taking into account the religious sentiments and practices followed in the temple. Article 25 confers freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health and all other provisions of Part III. But every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage their religious affairs subject to public order, morality and health. Every religious denomination is conferred such freedom under Article 26 of the Constitution and they shall have the right – (a) to established and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and (c) to administer such property in accordance with law. It is contended that Ayyappa devotees form a denomination by themselves and have every right to regulate and manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Reliance has been placed on Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa23. Learned senior counsel have also drawn immense inspiration from the judgment of the High Court to highlight the stand that it is the right of a religious denomination to administer property and it is fundamental under the Constitution. Passages have been reproduced from Shri Lakhshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (supra). In essence, the submission is that the practice which is in vogue in the temple is 23 AIR 1964 SC 150 an essential part of religion which the Constitution protects. Learned senior counsel have commended us to a decision in S.P. Mittal v. Union of India and others24. According to them, whether any practice is an integral part of the religion or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence. Relying upon the authority in Tilkayat Shri Gvindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan and others25 it is contended that that the question will always have to be decided by the Court and in doing so the Court may have to enquire whether the practice in question is religious in character and, if it is, whether it can be regarded as an integral or essential part of the religion and finding on the question on such an issue will always depend upon the evidence adduced before it as to the conscience of the community and the tenets of its religion. Reference has been made to Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Others26 to state that the said authority has in unmistakable terms held that in regard to affairs in matters of religion the right of management given to a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right which no legislature can take away. Various paragraphs from the judgment of the Kerala 24 (1983) 1 SCC 51 25 (1964) 1 SCR 561 : AIR 1963 SC 1638 26 AIR 1954 SC 388 : 1954 SCR 155 High Court have been referred to bolster the stand that such restriction imposed by the Davaswom Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Such restriction is also not violative of the provisions of the 1965 Act since there is no restriction between one section and another section or between one class among the Hindus in the matter of entry to the temple whereas the prohibition is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class. They have referred to the additional affidavit filed by the Devaswom Board that Ayyappans belong to a different denomination and it is elaborately set forth how the temple has come into existence. That apart, it is seriously canvassed that once a decision has been rendered by the High Court, it would operate as res judicata and that will bind all persons including the petitioners herein. The question as to whether a set of persons constitute a religious denomination is a mixed question of fact and law and should be decided by a competent civil court after examination of documentary and other evidence. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the authority in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others27. Various other aspects have 27 (2014) 5 SCC 75 also been highlighted but it is not necessary to note the same at present.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.