Hinduism way of life, not mandatory to go to temple to prove belief: SC
Senior advocate Dr G. Mohan Gopal says demands for social justice are increasingly emerging from within religious communities
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that Hinduism is “a way of life” and said it is not necessary for a Hindu to mandatorily visit a temple or perform rituals in order to remain a follower of the faith.
The observations were made by a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while hearing a batch of petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple, and issues related to religious freedom across faiths, including the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The bench also comprised justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
During the hearing, senior advocate Dr G. Mohan Gopal, appearing for one of the intervenors, argued that demands for social justice had increasingly emerged from within religious communities themselves.
Questioning earlier judicial interpretations defining Hindu identity, Gopal said: “Hinduism was defined as a religious category. Thereafter, in 1966, it was held that a Hindu is one who accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in all matters of religion and philosophy. They never asked me. None of us ever said that.”
“Now, I have the highest respect for the Vedas and great admiration for it. But is it a fact that every person today classified as Hindu accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in all spiritual and philosophical matters?” he asked.
Responding to the submission, justice Nagarathna remarked: “That is why Hinduism is called a way of life. It is not necessary for a Hindu to mandatorily go to a temple or perform a ritual in order to remain a Hindu.”
She further observed that one need not be ritualistic to practise the faith and that nobody could obstruct individuals in following their beliefs.
The CJI added: “Even if an individual lights a lamp inside his hut, it is enough to prove his religion.”
The hearing, now in its 15th day, is continuing before the Constitution bench.
The court had earlier cautioned against excessive judicial scrutiny of religious practices, observing that if every matter of faith were challenged before constitutional courts, “every religion will break” under the weight of endless litigation.
The proceedings stem from broader questions arising out of the landmark 2018 Sabarimala verdict, in which a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the centuries-old practice barring women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the hill shrine, holding the restriction unconstitutional and discriminatory.
With PTI inputs