Supreme Court flags risk of ‘dividing society’ if temple access restricted by caste or sect

THe sublime margaret court on th cautioned that excluding people from temples on grounds of caste, belief or denominational identity element could feature a damaging effect on Hinduism itself, observing that the constitutional endeavour must be to “unify and not create further divisions” within society.“Keep aside the Sabarimala controversy…everybody must have access to every temple and mutt. But if you say it is a practice…that only my section must attend my temple and no one else, that is not good for Hinduism,” the nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked, adding that such an approach would end up “dividing the society further.” The bench also includes justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi.The observations came on the third day of hearing in the Sabarimala reference, as the court examined the interplay between denominational rights under Article 26 and the State’s power to enact social reform laws under Article 25(2)(b), particularly in the context of temple entry.Appearing for the Nair Service Society, senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan argued that the landmark ruling in Sri Venkataramana Devaru Vs State of Mysore (1958), which upheld the application of temple entry laws to denominational temples, was wrongly decided. He contended that Article 26(b), which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, operates independently and cannot be curtailed by laws made under Article 25(2)(b).The bench, however, expressed reservations about such a broad reading of denominational autonomy. It pointed out that Article 26 itself is subject to public order, morality and health, and cannot be interpreted in a manner that permits exclusionary practices that undermine social cohesion.At one stage, the court noted that even in the Devaru case, which involved a temple claimed by the Gowda Saraswat Brahmin community, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, allowing entry to all sections of Hindus, thereby prioritising social reform over denominational exclusivity.“What you are arguing is directly in the teeth of Article 25(2)(b),” remarked the CJI, indicating that the constitutional scheme envisages a balance rather than a hierarchy between the two provisions.A key strand of the court’s reasoning was rooted in the lived reality of Hindu religious practice, which it said does not conform to rigid denominational boundaries. The bench noted that devotees routinely visit temples and mutts across sectarian lines, undermining the premise that access can be strictly confined to a particular group.“People go here and there…followers of one sampradaya do not restrict themselves to one institution,” observed the court, questioning the feasibility of rigid denominational barriers in a religion marked by internal plurality.Justice Nagarathna, on her part, emphasised that any interpretation permitting exclusion of entire sections from places of worship could foster division rather than cohesion. “We have to unify…we do not have to divide further,” she remarked.In another significant exchange, the court highlighted a potential inconsistency in arguments that seek judicial deference in matters relating to religious denominations and temple entry while endorsing intervention in practices such as triple talaq as measures of social reform – as argued by Vaidynathan.“There is an inherent contradiction in your submissions. You cannot take a stand here and say triple talaq is okay because that is also a part of the religion. You may not subscribe to the way it is done and how someone misuses or misinterprets it, (but) it does not give rights to the court to interfere. You cannot have this contradictory stand,” pressed Justice Amanullah, noting that both sets of issues engage questions of faith, practice and constitutional rights.The hearing also revisited the scope of judicial review, with the court reiterating its position from Wednesday that religious freedoms are not absolute and remain subject to constitutional limitations. The bench had then pushed back against the Centre’s argument for judicial restraint, emphasising that courts cannot be “completely denuded” of jurisdiction in cases involving manifest constitutional violations.On Thursday, this theme was extended to the question of access to places of worship, with the court suggesting that an overly expansive interpretation of denominational rights could risk fragmenting religious communities and undermining the broader constitutional goal of social unity.The proceedings also saw a brief debate on the scope of denominational rights beyond temples, including in the context of educational institutions, though the bench appeared disinclined to expand the reference to such issues at this stage.The nine-judge bench is tasked with answering seven foundational questions arising from the 2019 reference, including the contours of essential religious practices, the balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy, and the limits of judicial review in matters of faith.