The right of a person to enter a temple wasn't unrestricted, the Centre has said, taking a significant stand on the Sabarimala dispute between ‘right’ & ‘tradition’. “The right to enter a temple wasn't an unrestricted right” & can be subjected to “restrictions by the trustees” of the temple, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended in the Top Court on Monday.
Arguing for the Centre on the scope of a reference in the Sabarimala review made to a nine-judge bench, Mehta invoked Hinduism’s pluralism & said that he would abide by any dress code prescribed to enter a temple. Mehta also argued that the bench would have to decide who will take a call on what is ‘essential practice’ in a religion: Will it be the courts, as has been in the past, or the followers of a denomination, he sought to know, drawing contours of the debate on the scope of Article 25, which protects freedom to practice, profess & propagate a religion, & Article 26, the right of a denomination to run its own affairs.
Though the courts have decided on the issue earlier, it ran into problems in the Sabarimala case after the temple trust refused to allow entry to women of reproductive age to the shrine, citing tradition. Following Mehta’s submissions, the bench wondered if courts were not free to intervene to ensure reforms in religious practices. The bench cited earlier instances of sati & dowry to back its claim.
The hearing was abruptly stopped mid-way. No reasons were given, nor was it clear if the hearing will continue on Tuesday. No fresh date has been set for the hearing.
Source Link
Picture Source :
