Centre's Arguments on Sabarimala Temple Case
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, emphasized the importance of public morality over constitutional morality in matters of faith. The Supreme Court's "essential religious practices test" was deemed unworkable due to India's diverse religious landscape.
Religious Denominations and Essential Practices
- The term "religious denomination" should be interpreted in the Indian context, protecting essential religious practices only if a group is a separate denomination.
- Justice B V Nagarathna advocated for universal access to temples, suggesting exclusion would harm Hinduism.
- Senior Advocate C S Vaidyanathan argued for the autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26(b) to determine essential rites and practices.
Approach to Constitutional Interpretation
- Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee proposed a "swadeshi and Indic" approach to constitutional interpretation, advocating for grounding in India's civilizational heritage rather than Western jurisprudence.
- He urged the court to use the 1950 Hindu version of the Constitution for understanding the term 'religious denomination' in Article 26.
Article 25 and 26
- Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
- Article 26(b) gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
Denominational Rights and Social Division
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended against denying denomination status to Ayyappa devotees, cautioning against unrestrained rights causing social divisions.
- Vaidyanathan supported the idea of private temples, citing ancient Tharavads in Kerala with exclusive access for family members.
Concerns Over Social and Religious Balance
- Justice Nagarathna expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on Hinduism if denominational rights led to exclusion from temples.
- She referenced the 1958 Supreme Court judgment, which maintained the right for denominational temples to manage their affairs but restricted exclusion of non-members.
