.jpg)
Court Can Distinguish Superstition from Religious Practice
The Supreme Court has asserted its right and jurisdiction to determine whether a religious practice constitutes a superstition or a genuine religious observance. This significant issue arose in the context of the contentious Sabarimala temple entry case, where restrictions on women's entry were challenged. In 2018, the Supreme Court had struck down the traditional ban on women aged 10-50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, deeming it a violation of constitutional rights to equality and dignity. This verdict sparked widespread protests, with some defending the tradition as a religious practice and others, including women's rights advocates, welcoming it as a step towards gender equality. The legal challenge to this ruling continues, with a larger bench of the Supreme Court currently reviewing the matter.
During the ongoing review, which followed further incidents of women entering the temple in 2019, the court has been grappling with complex questions. One central point is the judiciary's authority to distinguish between superstition and essential religious practice, with Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasizing the need to view such practices through the lens of the specific religion's philosophy. The bench also addressed the admissibility of public interest litigations filed by non-devotees, noting concerns that such a precedent could open doors for similar petitions in other religious contexts. The "Indian Young Lawyers" organization, however, defended their petition, claiming to represent women devotees who were hesitant to approach the court directly.
Further arguments included the chief priest of Sabarimala emphasizing the devotee's surrender to divine attributes. The court pondered whether the Constitution should protect devotees denied access based on birth or tradition, concluding that there can be no distinction between 'creator' and 'creation.' While respecting reasoned opinions from legal experts and dignitaries, the Supreme Court explicitly stated it would not entertain "WhatsApp University-inspired opinions." Crucially, the court rejected the Solicitor General's argument that defining 'superstition' is solely the legislature's role, firmly stating that the Supreme Court has the right and jurisdiction to make such determinations, aligning with the Constitution's emphasis on scientific temper, and that the legislature's decision on subsequent actions is not the final word, thereby upholding constitutional supremacy.
Source: CourtBeat News (Kannada)
