New Delhi: The lone dissenting voice, Justice Ms. Indu Malhotra while justifying the ban on entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years, said the issues raised in the petition have far-reaching ramifications and implications, not only for the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, but for all places of worship of various religions in this country, which have their own beliefs, practises, customs and usages, which may be considered to be exclusionary in nature.
Differing with the majority view, she said in a secular polity, Courts must not ordinarily interfere with issues, which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment. Article 25(1) confers on every individual the right to freely profess, practise and propagate his or her religion. The right of an individual to worship a specific manifestation of the deity, in accordance with the tenets of that faith or shrine, is protected by Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
If a person claims to have faith in a certain deity, the same has to be articulated in accordance with the tenets of that fait and it is upto to the religious leaders in the community whether continue the practice or not. The worshippers of this Temple believe in the manifestation of the deity as a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’. She said the Court couldn’t impose its morality or rationality with respect to worship of a deity. Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs.
