There can’t be anarchy: SC hears Sabarimala case, flags need for structure in religious institutions

The nine-judge bench is chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant and includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. The hearing, addressing the scope of religious freedom and rights of denominations, is ongoing, with references to the 2018 judgment and to issues of discrimination at religious sites.

Senior advocate Nizam Pasha 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 described the dargah as a burial site and noted the Sufi tradition’s reverence for such sites, citing recognised orders like Chishtiya, Qadriya, Naqshbandiya and Suhrawardiya, and emphasised adherence to Islamic practices.

The Supreme Court began hearing a batch of petitions linked to the Sabarimala temple case and issues concerning women's entry at places of worship before a nine-judge Constitution bench. The bench includes 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. Justice Amanullah emphas said that the right to manage a religious institution cannot imply the absence of systems or procedures and that there cannot be anarchy; regulation is necessary but must remain within constitutional limits and not discriminate.

A five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, holding the practice illegal and unconstitutional. The court noted the challenge in judicially determining whether a religious practice is essential or non-essential, stating it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define such parameters.