Justice Nagarathna said, irrespective of what happens to the Devaru judgment, “Let the religion not be adversely affected.”Underlining that public morality, not constitutional morality, must be the governing standard in matters of faith and that the Supreme Court’s “essential religious practices test” is unworkable, the Centre Thursday concluded its arguments before the 9-judge Constitution Bench reviewing the 2018 ruling, which held that barring the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.“Public morality is the governing standard, not constitutional morality as interpreted in earlier cases… determination of essential religious practices is unworkable in the Indian religious landscape. Given the diversity and plurality, the principle of essential religious practice cannot be uniformly applied,” Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj said. He said the phrase “religious denomination” must be understood in the Indian context. The Court has interpreted the Constitution to protect only essential religious practices of a group if it constitutes a separate religious denomination.Justice B V Nagarathna, one of the judges on the bench, said, “Everybody must have access to temples and mutts, and denominational temples keeping any section out will not be in the best interests of Hinduism.”Read | Entry must be decided based on rights of temple devotees, Centre tells Supreme CourtSenior Advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Nair Service Society, sought to highlight the need for religious denominations to have complete autonomy under Article 26 (b) in deciding what rites, ceremonies, and practices are essential according to the tenets of the religion, as was held in the landmark 1954 judgment in the Shirur Mutt case.Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, also appearing for the Centre, pitched for a “swadeshi and Indic approach to constitutional interpretation…by grounding constitutional rights in India’s own civilizational heritage” than based on Western jurisprudence. He urged the court to use the 1950 Hindu version of the Constitution for the exact meaning of the expression ‘religious denomination’ in Article 26.Read | Former Kerala High Court judge V G Arun to head Sabarimala Master Plan high-power committeeArticle 26 (b) gives a religious denomination or any section thereof the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.In the 2018 Sabarimala ruling, the majority verdict held that the devotees of Ayyappa do not constitute a “separate religious denomination”, while Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissenting view held that Sabarimala temple satisfies the requirements of being a separate religious denomination, holding that such practices are protected by Article 25. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.Story continues below this adSolicitor General Tushar Mehta, who also concluded his arguments Thursday, contended that it was wrong for the court to deny denomination status to Ayyappa devotees. However, he expressed concern that the right of denominations under Article 26 (b) to manage their own affairs in matters of religion cannot be unrestrained, as this may lead to fights between denominations in matters of temple entry and cause social divisions. Vaidyanathan told the bench that he differed with the Centre on the aspect of denominational rights. He said that denominations’ right to manage their own affairs could include “private temples.” “…There are ancient Tharavads in Kerala and other parts of the country, which have their own temples which are visited only by their family members,” he said.Responding to the argument, Justice Nagarathna, said, “There is one apprehension… Keep aside the controversy in Sabarimala. If you say the right of entry, in the context of Venkataramana Devaru, where they said anybody other than Gowda Saraswat Brahmin is excluded, it will affect Hinduism negatively…”She was referring to a landmark 1958 Supreme Court judgment that balanced religious freedom with social reform. It ruled that while a denominational temple (like Gowda Saraswat Brahmins) had the right to manage its affairs but it did not have a right to exclude others from accessing the temple. “We will be dividing the society,” Justice Aravind Kumar seconded.Justice Nagarathna said, irrespective of what happens to the Devaru judgment, “Let the religion not be adversely affected.”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