A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India on Thursday observed that denying any section of society access to temples and ‘maths’ (monasteries) would negatively impact Hinduism and lead to social division. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that the practice of excluding individuals based on denomination is “not good for Hinduism” and could prove “counter-productive” for the religious groups involved.
The significant remarks were made during a hearing on a cluster of petitions concerning the scope of religious freedom and discrimination against women at various places of worship, a matter stemming from the 2018 Sabarimala temple entry case.
The hearing centered on the extent to which religious denominations can restrict worship to their own members. Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing organizations including the Nair Service Society and Ayyappa Seva Samajam, argued that denominational temples should have the right to confine worship exclusively to their specific section or provide only permissive rights to outsiders.
Vaidyanathan contended that if a temple serves only its particular denomination, it should not seek funds from the state, private donors, or the general public. He further asserted that any law regulating such practices must meet the constitutional tests of public order, morality, and health.
The bench expressed strong reservations regarding the argument for exclusion. Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the potential long-term damage of such practices.
“Everybody must have access to every temple and math. Keep aside the controversy in the Sabarimala judgment,” Justice Nagarathna remarked. “But if you say it is a practice and it is a matter of religion that I will exclude others and only my section, my denomination will attend the temple and nobody else—that is not good for Hinduism. Let the religion not be adversely affected.”
Justice Aravind Kumar concurred, noting that such exclusionary practices would inevitably divide society. Justice Nagarathna also referenced the Venkataramana Devaru case, cautioning that if the right of entry is interpreted to allow the exclusion of everyone except a specific group (such as the Gowda Saraswat Brahmins), it would have a negative effect on the broader faith.
The current proceedings are the result of a long-standing legal battle over gender equality and religious tradition.
- September 2018: A five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4:1 majority, lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple, declaring the practice unconstitutional.
- November 2019: Following review petitions, a five-judge bench headed by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred broader issues of discrimination at religious places to a larger bench.
The current nine-judge bench is tasked with answering seven specific questions regarding the ambit of religious freedom under the Constitution. The court has maintained that these broad issues must be decided with a focus on constitutional principles rather than being confined to the facts of a single case.
