Supreme Court On Sabarimala Temple Matter: In the Sabarimala temple case, the Center mentioned Ajmer Dargah and Shirdi Saibaba Temple in the Supreme Court, know what it said?

New Delhi. CJI Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundaresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Arvind Kumar, Justice AG Masih, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Justice R. The Constitution bench of Justice Mahadevan and Justice Jaimalya Bagchi started hearing from Tuesday the case related to equal rights of entry for women in many religious places including Sabarimala temple. This hearing is expected to continue till April 21. During this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also presented arguments on behalf of the Central Government.

The Solicitor General said the court needs to avoid a narrow interpretation of religious denomination and essential religious practice. He said that if these concepts were implemented too strictly, a flexible and diverse religion like Hinduism could be adversely affected. He stressed on maintaining balance citing the right to religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Also, the Central Government said that it is not supporting any party and is only expressing its views on constitutional questions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also mentioned the Dargah of Ajmer and the Saibaba temple of Shirdi in the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. He said that people of different religions and sects come here for darshan. Which proves that the structure of religious identity and belief in the country is complex and has many levels.

In the hearing, the Supreme Court bench said that America cannot blindly apply rigid principles to define a religious sect. The Supreme Court acknowledged that there are many traditions and beliefs in the same religion. Justice Nagarathna said that there is a difference between propagation of religion and forced conversion. Article 25 of the Constitution does not sanction forced conversion. He approves the propagation of religion. Senior lawyer Indira Jaisingh said in the court that the Constitution Bench should consider only the legal questions related to Articles 25 and 26. At the same time, senior lawyer Rajiv Dhawan said that there should be limited interference in religious matters. Rajiv Dhawan said that the court’s intervention should be based on the cases. So that there is a balance between religious freedom and constitutional values.