‘Cannot have anarchy’: Supreme Court hears Sabarimala case, says religious institutions need structure

New Delhi: Supreme Court While hearing a batch of petitions related to the Sabarimala temple case and the issue regarding women’s entry into places of worship on Tuesday, it was observed that every religious institution has to function as per laid down norms and cannot function in anarchy.The nine-judge Constitution bench said the right to regulate religious institutions does not imply lack of structure and regulation is necessary for orderly functioning as long as religious institutions remain within the ambit of the constitution.The court is hearing cases related to discrimination against women at religious sites such as the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as broader questions about the scope of religious freedom and sectarian rights under the Constitution.The bench comprised Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.During the hearing, Justice Asanuddin Amanullah said the right to manage religious institutions does not mean there is no system or process.“Anarchy is not possible. Take a religious ceremony or a temple. There will be elements related to the institution, the way of worship, the order of doing things. Someone has to regulate those.”He said institutions need an authority or body to ensure proper management and order.The judge said that while regulation was necessary, such powers could not violate constitutional protections or allow discrimination.“It’s not possible for everyone to say I’m going to do what I want or that the door is always open without any control. So the question is, who is that governing body.” This is where protection comes in, because regulation is necessary. At the same time, it cannot exceed the limits of the Constitution. There cannot be discrimination on broad constitutional parameters,” Justice Amanullah said.He added that every institution must have norms and operations cannot be decided by each visitor or devotee alone.Senior advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Peerzada Syed Altamash Nizami, argued that the Chishti Nizami lineage associated with the dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia constituted a religious sect with the right to regulate entry and administration.He told the court that the dargah is where saints are buried and Sufi tradition holds these sites in deep reverence.“Within Islam, there are different views on the status of saints after death, but within the Sufi belief system there is a deep reverence for the places where saints are buried.”Pasha said the Sufi tradition in India consists of several recognized orders, including Chishtiya, Qadriya, Naqshbandiya and Suhrawardiya, and this case involves the Chishtiya order.“In my opinion, this system clearly constitutes a religious sect. If you look at the teachings of Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia, there is an emphasis on observing Islamic practices such as Roza, Namaz, Hajj, Zakat and most importantly, faith,” he said.He argued that regulating the right to enter religious institutions was part of the administrative rights guaranteed by the constitution.The ongoing proceedings stem from issues that were referred to the larger bench after the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala judgment.In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had by a 4:1 majority quashed the ban on women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, holding that the centuries-old practice was illegal and unconstitutional.The Supreme Court had earlier noted the challenges in judicially determining whether a practice is essential or non-essential to religion.It noted that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to define the parameters for declaring a particular religious activity as essential or non-essential. Hearings on the matter continue.