Advocate Venkata Ragahuvamsy D, appearing for an intervener before 9-Judge Bench in Sabarimala Reference, suggested “re-conceptualisation of religious denomination,” submitting that a group of devotees sharing a particular “devotional makeup” towards a deity could be treated as an independent spiritual fraternity.
On essential religious practices, it was argued that courts should assess such practices through “agamic tenets” or tantric modes of worship, which, according to him, require deeper consideration.
He submitted that while individuals are free under Article 25 of the Constitution to practice and mix religions, such mixing should not be introduced into a denomination. “Once you enter a temple, you have to adhere to those principles and practices,” the counsel submitted.
It was further argued that sects such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, and variations in forms of worship of the same deity, should be treated as denominations, and that Hinduism cannot be given a static or singular denominational identity. On State power under Article 25(2) of the Constitution, the he submitted that it is limited to financial administration and secular aspects, stating that the State acts only as a custodian and does not own temples.
The intervener also proposed a test for “morality” under Article 25, distinguishing between individual conduct affecting society and actions that may bring disrepute to a denomination, referring in this context to the Maharaj Libel case.
Self-Determination Lies at Heart of Religious Freedom: Advocate Rahul Tanwani
Advocate Rahul Tanwani argued that Articles 25 and 26 embody the principle of self-determination in religious matters. He submitted that these provisions allow communities to define their own religious identity and practices, noting that the concept of “religious denomination” is broad enough to include both formal worship and indigenous practices.
Referring to the case law evolution from Shirur Mutt Case onwards, he argued that judicial interpretation has expanded in a way that denueded community to determine its own practices. However, Mr Thanwani clarified that restoring community autonomy would not eliminate judicial oversight: “This reconsideration does not preclude judicial intervention or judicial review, nor does it make Article 26 absolute.”
Concluding, he stated that the balance between denominational rights and social reform should be preserved.