2018 (9) TMI 1790 - SC - Indian Laws

Removal of Ban on Entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 years to the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala (Kerala) - denial on the basis of certain custom and usage - discrimination or not - declaration of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e) of the Constitution of India - doctrine of equality - Constitutional Morality - scope of Article 17 of the Constitution. Held that - The Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained for want of standing. The grievances raised are non-justiciable at the behest of the Petitioners and Intervenors involved herein. The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does not override the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 25 to every individual to freely profess, practise and propagate their faith, in accordance with the tenets of their religion - Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would imply the harmonisation of the Fundamental Rights, which include the right of every individual, religious denomination, or sect, to practise their faith and belief in accordance with the tenets of their religion, irrespective of whether the practise is rational or logical. The Respondents and the Intervenors have made out a plausible case that the Ayyappans or worshippers of the Sabarimala Temple satisfy the requirements of being a religious denomination, or sect thereof, which is entitled to the protection provided by Article 26. This is a mixed question of fact and law which ought to be decided before a competent court of civil jurisdiction. The limited restriction on the entry of women during the notified agegroup does not fall within the purview of Article 17 of the Constitution. Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is not ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act, since the proviso carves out an exception in the case of public worship in a temple for the benefit of any religious denomination or sect thereof, to manage their affairs in matters of religion. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967.
2. Interpretation of the term "propagate" in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
3. Definition and scope of "religious denomination" under Article 26 of the Constitution.
4. Essential religious practices and their protection under Articles 25 and 26.
5. Gender discrimination and the right to worship under Articles 14, 15, and 17.
6. Concept of constitutional morality in relation to religious practices.
7. Role of courts in adjudicating religious matters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of both statutes, stating that they fall within the exception of "public order" as they prohibit conversion from one religion to another by use of force, allurement, or other fraudulent means.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Propagate" in Article 25(1) of the Constitution:
The court held that the word "propagate" in Article 25(1) does not include the right to convert another person to one's own religion. It grants the right to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. The court emphasized that Article 25(1) guarantees "freedom of conscience" to every citizen, which does not include the right to convert others.

3. Definition and Scope of "Religious Denomination" Under Article 26 of the Constitution:
The court referred to several judgments to define a "religious denomination." In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, the court laid down three conditions for a religious denomination:
1. A collection of individuals with a system of beliefs or doctrines conducive to their spiritual well-being.
2. Common organization.
3. Designation by a distinctive name.

The court further elaborated on this in cases like Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, and Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P.

4. Essential Religious Practices and Their Protection Under Articles 25 and 26:
The court examined whether certain practices are essential to the religion. In Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta, the court held that the Tandava dance was not an essential religious rite of the Ananda Margis. Similarly, in N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, the court held that the appointment of a non-Malayala Brahmin as a priest was valid, emphasizing that customs violating constitutional mandates cannot be upheld.

5. Gender Discrimination and the Right to Worship Under Articles 14, 15, and 17:
The court addressed the issue of gender discrimination in the context of religious practices. In the Sabarimala case, the court held that the exclusion of women based on menstrual status is a form of untouchability and violates constitutional values of equality and dignity. The court struck down the custom of excluding women from the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional.

6. Concept of Constitutional Morality in Relation to Religious Practices:
The court emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over religious practices that violate fundamental rights. The court held that practices derogatory to the dignity of women and their entitlement to equal citizenship cannot be constitutionally protected.

7. Role of Courts in Adjudicating Religious Matters:
The court reiterated that while it must respect religious beliefs and practices, it has the duty to ensure that these practices do not violate fundamental rights. The court emphasized that it must balance the rights of religious denominations with individual rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court's judgment comprehensively addressed the balance between religious freedom and constitutional values, emphasizing that practices violating fundamental rights of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination cannot be protected under the guise of religious freedom. The court upheld the constitutional validity of statutes prohibiting forced conversions and clarified the scope of "propagate" under Article 25(1). It also provided a detailed analysis of what constitutes a "religious denomination" and the protection of essential religious practices, while ensuring that these practices do not infringe upon constitutional rights.

← Previous Next →