The reference is testing the limits of the constitutional framework to deal with the relationship among religion, religious denominations and the state.Supreme Court’s ongoing Sabarimala hearings has brought forth the faultlines in the saffron camp on an issue close to its supporters’ hearts: freeing temples from state control.Submissions by the BJP-led Centre to the nine-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, reflect the Narendra Modi government’s reluctance to cede complete control of temples to the faithful — something the party has often accused Opposition-ruled states of. Among those protesting the Centre’s stand are a host of Hindu outfits, including the ‘RSS-inspired’ Kerala Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi.The bench, also comprising Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, is examining seven constitutional questions arising out of petitions seeking review of the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that struck down restrictions on entry of women into the Kerala hill shrine.Read | Public morality must govern matters of faith: Centre to Supreme Court on SabarimalaOne of the key questions before the bench is “the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26”. The reference is testing the limits of the constitutional framework to deal with the relationship among religion, religious denominations and the state.While Article 26 (b) gives religious denominations, and any section thereof, right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, Article 25 clause (2) sub-clause (a) empowers the state to make laws for regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which may be associated with religious practice. Sub clause (b) allows the state to make laws for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of the faith.ExplainedTesting timesOne of the key questions before the bench is “the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26”. The reference is testing the limits of the constitutional framework to deal with the relationship among religion, religious denominations and the state.Hindu outfits say that state governments have used Article 25 to establish perpetual control over temples, grab their wealth, appoint priests and sometimes even dictate — as in Tamil Nadu — what prayers should be recited in the sanctum sanctorum, or prevent saffron flags in temple festivals as in Kerala.On the issue of appointment of temple priests (archakas), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, was categoric that it is not a secular function.Story continues below this ad“Even in a public temple, appointment of a pujari who requires certain expertise, qualifications and knowledge of Agamas (scriptures that explain the manner of consecration and worship in temples, their construction, etc.) can never be left to the government,” he said. “It (appointment) cannot be done under an act or by the state… Tomorrow, by this very logic…Shankaracharya can be removed by the state, some archbishop can be removed by the state. These kinds of things will have to emanate from the religion itself, from the society itself, from the denomination itself. It cannot be state-controlled. That is the real secularism… If we do not want religion to interfere with the state, the state also will not interfere with the religion.”Mehta, though, was guarded on the interplay between Article 25 and 26 rights. “Both rights are fundamental rights. Article 26 (b) is a right, which is not an island, but between the two, being the denominational right, would have a precedence, provided that if there is some provision of law which requires it to be curtailed, or to be regulated or restricted, then it would be Article 25 (2). And my concern also I have shared, if we say 26(b) is unhindered, then there can be an argument that even people from say Schedule Castes… can also be prevented…” he said.Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:SabarimalaSabarimala case