'무질서가 있을 수 없다': 대법원, 사바리말라 사건 심리, 종교기관의 체계 필요성 강조

The Supreme Court emphasized that religious institutions must operate under established norms, not anarchy, while hearing cases related to women's entry at places of worship. A nine-judge bench stated that the right to manage a religious institution requires regulation within constitutional limits to prevent discrimination and ensure orderly functioning.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that every religious institution must function under established norms and cannot operate in a state of anarchy, while hearing a batch of petitions linked to the Sabarimala temple case and issues concerning women’s entry at places of worship.A nine-judge Constitution bench said the right to manage a religious institution does not mean the absence of structure, and regulation is necessary for orderly functioning, provided it remains within constitutional limits. Watch Kerala LDF Government Backs Ban on Women at Sabarimala Temple: Political and Electoral ContextThe court was hearing matters related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, along with broader questions on the scope of religious freedom and rights of denominations under the Constitution.The bench comprised Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.During the hearing, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said the right to manage a religious institution cannot imply the absence of systems or procedures."There cannot be anarchy.Take a dargah or a temple. There will be elements associated with the institution, the manner of worship, the sequence in which things are done. Somebody has to regulate that."He said institutions require an authority or body to ensure proper management and order.The bench said while regulation is necessary, such powers cannot violate constitutional protections or permit discrimination."It cannot be that everyone says I will do whatever I want, or that the gates remain open at all times without any control. So the question is, who is that body which manages. That is where protection comes in, because regulation is necessary. At the same time, it cannot transgress constitutional limitations. There cannot be discrimination on the broad constitutional parameters," Justice Amanullah said.He added that every institution must have norms and functioning cannot be determined individually by each visitor or devotee.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 constitutes a religious denomination with the right to regulate entry and management.He told the court that a dargah is a place where a saint is buried and that the Sufi tradition accords deep reverence to such sites."Within Islam, there are differing views regarding the status of saints after death, but in the Sufi system of belief, there is deep reverence attached to the place where a saint is interred."Pasha said the Sufi tradition in India consists of several recognised orders, including Chishtiya, Qadriya, Naqshbandiya and Suhrawardiya, and that the present case concerns the Chishtiya order."This system, I submit, clearly constitutes a religious denomination. If one looks at the teachings attributed to Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya, there is emphasis on adherence to Islamic practices such as roza, namaz, hajj, zakat, and above all, faith," he submitted.He argued that the right to regulate entry into a religious institution forms part of management rights guaranteed under the Constitution.The ongoing proceedings arise from issues referred to a larger bench after the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala judgment.A five-judge Constitution bench had, by a 4:1 majority in September 2018, struck down the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, holding that the centuries-old practice was illegal and unconstitutional.The Supreme Court had earlier noted the challenge in judicially determining whether a practice is essential or non-essential to a religion.It observed that it was very difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to define parameters for declaring a particular religious practice as essential or non-essential. The hearing in the matter is continuing.