New Delhi, 28 April (H.S.): On the ninth day of hearings in the Sabarimala temple case, the Supreme Court’s nine‑judge Constitution Bench ruled that the right to manage a religious institution does not entitle it to operate without a structured framework or in a state of anarchy. Chief Justice Suryakant‑led Bench emphasised that every religious body—be it a temple, mosque, church or dargah—must have a defined system for governance, rituals and administration, and that “anarchy” cannot be a cover for uncontested authority.
During the proceedings, senior counsel Nizam Pasha, appearing for Syed Altemash Nizami—a descendant of the Chishti Nizami Sufi order linked to the Dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya—submitted that a dargah is a space marking the tomb of a saint and that Sufi tradition holds deep reverence for such sites even after the saint’s death. He argued that the management has the right to regulate entry and practice within the religious institution as part of its managerial authority.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah responded that the concept of management does not licence the absence of structure. “The right of management cannot mean there is no framework, no norms, and complete anarchy,” he observed, underscoring that there must be a clear order and methodology for how the body functions, who conducts rituals, and how day‑to‑day affairs are administered.
The Court iterated that whether the institution is a dargah, a temple, or any other place of worship, there must be a sensible, rule‑based regime, with someone clearly accountable for maintaining it.
The Constitution Bench also sharply reprimanded lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay for repeatedly straying from the core legal questions into broad political and philosophical arguments. Upadhyay had asserted that religion is larger than “religion” itself and criticised recent judicial interventions in religious matters, suggesting the Court must consider the long‑term consequences for the country’s trajectory.
Justice Mahadevan interrupted him, warning that he was “diverting from the subject” and insisting that his submissions must remain focused on the specific issues before the Court. Justice B.V. Nagarathna also asked him to avoid getting drawn into abstract linguistic‑and‑ideological debates and to confine his arguments to the present reference.
The Court, she added, is not in the business of accepting “WhatsApp university”‑style citations or opinion pieces—notably chuckling over an earlier effort to cite an article by Shashi Tharoor accessed via WhatsApp groups.
The nine‑judge bench comprises Chief Justice Suryakant, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice A.H. Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice A.J. Masih, Justice P.B. Varale, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Joy Matly Bagchi. The current reference re‑examines the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, in which a five‑judge bench (4‑1 majority) had held that barring women of certain ages from entering the Ayyappa shrine violated their fundamental right to religious freedom under Article 25(1) and struck down a Kerala government rule permitting such exclusion on “customary” grounds.
That 2018 ruling stated that women are not inferior to men, and that physiological and biological reasons cannot be used to deny their right to worship in the same manner as men, given how the same faith simultaneously venerates women‑goddesses in pan‑Hindu theology. The ongoing hearings are now weighing the scope of religious autonomy of institutions versus gender justice and constitutional equality, with the Court’s latest observation that even within religious management, “anarchy” has no place and clear, accountable structures must prevail.
---------------
Hindusthan Samachar / Jun Sarkar
