New Delhi: In the middle of the ‘faith and fundamental rights’ debate over the customary ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, a Hindu political party on Tuesday asked the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court to review its 30-year-old judgment declaring Hinduism a “way of life”.Expressing dissent against the three-judge bench verdict in the 1996 Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo judgment that Hinduism “can be broadly described as a way of life and nothing more”, a Hindu Party barrister said Hinduism was not a way of life but an ocean of convergence and assimilation of an unlimited number of different religious beliefs and beliefs.
During the proceedings before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate DV Singh said that in order to decide what constitutes fundamental religious practice in Hinduism, the court has to decide what constitutes “Hinduism and Hindu Dharma” and suggested that the SC could seek help from the Bhagavad Gita for this purpose.This reflects a request by senior lawyer Mr Shamshad on Thursday to a nine-judge bench asking five judges to review the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment which, while rejecting a challenge to the government’s acquisition of the then-controversial Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, ruled that the mosque was not necessary for providing namaz. He said that the mosque is the spirit of Islam and the core belief of Muslims.In its judgment in the Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo case, the Supreme Court had said, “When we think of Hinduism, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hinduism or even to describe it adequately.”“Unlike other religions in the world, Hinduism does not claim any single prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not believe in any one philosophical concept; it does not follow any set of religious rituals or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional character of any religion or creed. It can be broadly described as a way of life and nothing more,” the court said.“Generally, Hinduism is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it should not be equated or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism… The term ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindu identity’ is not necessarily to be understood and construed in a narrow sense and is limited to strictly Hindu religious practices which are irrelevant to the culture and spirituality of the people of India and depict the way of life of the people of India,” it said in the judgment.In its judgment in the Ismail Farooqui case, the Supreme Court held that “masjids are not an essential part of the practice of Islam and may be offered by namazbi Muslims anywhere, even in public. Therefore, the acquisition (of the disputed site) is not prohibited by the provisions of the Indian Constitution.”
