The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in the Sabarimala Case on Wednesday observed that Hinduism is a way of life and visiting a temple is not mandatory to demonstrate one's faith. “To remain a Hindu, it is not mandatory for an individual to visit a temple or perform any religious rituals. Even lighting a lamp at home is sufficient to demonstrate one's faith, the Supreme Court said.
The observation of a nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant came while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi are also part of the nine-judge bench. As the hearing commenced on 15th day of hearing, advocate Dr G Mohan Gopal, appearing for one of the intervenors submitted that there has been demand for social justice emerging from within religious communities.
Hinduism was defined as a religious category: SC
"Hinduism was defined as a religious category. Thereafter, in 1966, it was held that a Hindu is one who accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in all matters religion and philosophy. They never asked me. None of us ever said that.
"Now, I have the highest respect for the Vedas and great admiration for it. But is it a fact that every person today classified as Hindu accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in all spiritual and philosophical matters?" he asked.
SC says Hinduism is called as a way of life
Responding to his submission, Justice Nagarathna said, "That is why Hinduism is called as a way of life. It is not necessary for a Hindu to mandatorily go to a temple or perform a ritual in order to remain a Hindu."
She said one need not be ritualistic and nobody can come in the way for people having their faith. CJI also remarked, "Even if an individual lights a lamp inside his hut is enough to prove his religion."
The top court had earlier observed that if individuals start questioning every religious practice or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then there will be hundreds of petitions and every religion will "break" due to this.
A five-judge Constitution bench had lifted a ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in a 4:1 majority verdict in September 2018, ruling that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
Also Read:
Ban on women at Sabarimala linked to Lord Ayyappa's celibate tradition, not bias: Centre tells SC
