Back
Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer, Stresses Management Rights in Sabarimala Reference
New Delhi, – On the ninth day of hearings in the high-stakes Sabarimala reference before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the , the court sharply shifted focus to the identification of " " under of the Constitution for managing religious institutions. Justices emphasized the essential " " to prevent anarchy in worship practices, while rebuking senior advocate for straying into irrelevant arguments that pitted religions and languages against one another. This development underscores the bench's determination to confine deliberations to core constitutional questions surrounding religious freedom and institutional autonomy.
The hearings, presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant, revisit the contentious verdict that lifted the age-based ban on women's entry to the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. With profound implications for the interplay between Articles 25 (freedom of conscience and religious practice) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), Day 9 brought nuanced arguments on and judicial boundaries.
Background: The Sabarimala Controversy and Constitutional Reference
The Sabarimala dispute traces back to a centuries-old tradition barring women aged 10 to 50 from entering the hilltop Ayyappa shrine, rooted in the deity's celibate (naisthika brahmachari) status. In , a 4:1 majority struck down the practice as violative of women's dignity under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 25. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, upholding the temple's .
Review petitions led to a reference to a larger bench in , posing 11 questions on , , and the scope of . Now on Day 9, the bench—comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices Nagarathna, Amanullah, Mahadevan, Sundresh, and others—grapples with reconciling individual rights against collective religious management.
This reference arrives amid rising temple-mosque disputes and challenges to state control over Hindu endowments, making its outcome pivotal for constitutional jurisprudence on secularism.
Day 9 Proceedings: Reframing Article 26 Inquiry
Senior counsel, identified in updates as , advanced a pivotal argument reframing the lens. He contended that the threshold inquiry is not whether a religious institution is "denominational," but who qualifies as the "right holder" entitled to manage it.
"The correct inquiry is who is the right holder for the purpose of this particular institution, of a place of worship? Because in every instance of every religious institution and every place of worship, there will be a right holder of
,"
the counsel stated verbatim. He elaborated that even a non-denominational mosque—say, managed by a local neighborhood committee—retains management rights under
's "all sections thereof." Without such a holder, he warned, there would be "no right of management," allowing unrestricted access at all hours, undermining the institution's sanctity.
This submission builds on the landmark , which first delineated 's protections for religious denominations, but extends it universally to any managing body, denominational or otherwise.
Justice Amanullah on Preventing Anarchy in Worship
Justice Amanullah intervened decisively, aligning with the counsel while broadening the philosophical underpinnings.
"The basic focus should be—the
. Everything, there is a modality to everything. There cannot be anarchy,"
he observed.
Hypothesizing scenarios like a dargah or temple, the judge noted inherent
"elements associated with the entry, with the modality, how you worship, the sequence."
He stressed that gates cannot remain "open 24 hours" for unfettered individual whims; a regulating body is essential, protected under
provided it adheres to "broader constitutional parameters" like non-discrimination.
"Per se entry cannot be banned... But then for every institution, there has to be some norm, and who sets the norm? It cannot be that I decide my norm,"
Justice Amanullah remarked.
This intervention signals the bench's pragmatic approach: is not absolute but modulated by orderly management, echoing the "essential practices" doctrine from Sabarimala and Durgah Committee cases.
Court's Rebuke to Advocate Upadhyay: No Room for Religious Superiority
The proceedings took a tense turn when Advocate
veered into extraneous territory. Arguing
"Dharma is greater than religion,"
he claimed historical divisions of "Bharat" stemmed from "denominational conflicts," warning of geopolitical ramifications post-judgment—contrasting integrated nations like Japan with fragmented ones like Pakistan.
Upadhyay displayed Hindu texts (Ramayan, Vishnu Purana, Bhagavad Gita), asserting they lack damnation for non-believers unlike "other religions," and delved into linguistic comparisons: Sanskrit's 52 letters vs. English's 26, Tamil's 247, even Kannada's 52. He pushed for "Dharma" in school curricula and critiqued 's propagation rights as overly restrictive.
The bench repeatedly urged confinement to issues. Justice Mahadevan interjected:
"You are going beyond the subject... Don't go into all those areas."
Justice Nagarathna added,
"See all are equal, Don't go into superiority in the court of law."
When Upadhyay insisted
"all religions are not the same"
and
"Dharma says vasudaiva kutumbakam... religion says if you are in my religion,"
Justice Nagarathna countered,
"Every religion has its own Dharma."
Justices Sundresh (
"Please don't argue like this"
), Amanullah (
"Absolutely not. You have to understand the scope"
), and CJI Surya Kant ("Time is over") curtailed him. Upadhyay concluded by defending Sabarimala's entry bar as "reasonable," but the rebuke dominated headlines.
This episode reinforces the Supreme Court's stance against communal rhetoric in constitutional courts, akin to past reprimands in Ayodhya or hijab hearings.
Key Quotes and Judicial Observations
Verbatim exchanges illuminate the bench's mindset: - Counsel:
"There will still be a right holder and there will still be a right because otherwise there will be no right of management in this masjid. It must be open at all hours."
- Justice Nagarathna:
"No religion is superior to the other and all are equal and the Court is not going to go into all this."
These underscore a commitment to equality ( ethos) alongside autonomy.
Legal Analysis: Implications for Article 26 Rights
The "right holder" pivot potentially dilutes the denominational requirement from cases like , extending protections to informal bodies. This democratizes but risks litigation over "holder" identification—who qualifies? A local committee? State board? Devaswom?
Justice Amanullah's anarchy aversion aligns with , prioritizing regulated practices. Yet, it invites scrutiny: What "constitutional parameters" limit management? The Sabarimala majority deemed the ban non-essential; here, the bench may carve space for customs absent gender bias.
Upadhyay's rebuke signals zero tolerance for extra-constitutional advocacy, impacting amicus curiae roles and PIL strategies.
Broader Impacts on Constitutional Jurisprudence
For legal practitioners, Day 9 mandates precise, issue-bound submissions—vital in multi-day references. Temple trusts (e.g., Tirupati, Padmanabhaswamy) gain ammunition for autonomy claims, potentially challenging .
In a polarized landscape, the equality affirmation bolsters secularism, influencing Gyanvapi or Mathura disputes. Internationally, it mirrors U.S. church-state balances post-Smith v. Employment Division.
Looking Ahead: What This Means for Legal Practice
With hearings ongoing, practitioners should anticipate a nuanced verdict affirming management rights sans discrimination. Litigators: Master 's "sections" clause; avoid cultural digressions. The bar's decorum lesson is timeless—courts prioritize law over lore.
As India navigates religious pluralism, this reference could fortify constitutional bridges between faith and equality, ensuring no anarchy in devotion.
