Appointment of priests by govt boards can't be a secular act: Centre

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday launched a veiled attack on a Tamil Nadu law that wrested control of appointment of 'archakas (priests)' to temples, saying Supreme Court in the past had wrongly classified appointment of 'archakas' as a "secular act" when it was purely a religious decision.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta made a strong pitch for review of the jurisprudence developed by SC over the past few decades without considering the complexity of issues related to religion, faith and belief, and on being unduly influenced by Western jurisprudence, where individual liberty trumped societal conscience and morality.

His pitch, while in sync with the Modi govt's stand on the scope of the judiciary's intervention in faith-related issues, also takes on an additional dimension because of the timing - it came ahead of the assembly polls in TN. Mehta said that by upholding the TN law, which wrested control of appointment of 'archakas' and vested it in govt boards, SC allowed the state to intrude into religious matters of a denomination or sect maintaining their religious traditions in their temples.

Court must not be harbinger of reforms that undermine core belief & faith: SC

"If such a law is given imprimatur of Supreme Court, then even shankaracharya can be removed,” he said.

A nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “That does not mean ‘archakas’ would be above law and not held accountable for their misconduct.”

Mehta responded by saying that so long as appointment of ‘archakas’ by the community temple was not violative of constitutional norms prohibiting caste-based discrimination, it is the community which should have the right to appoint persons as ‘archakas’, if they meet the eligibility criteria of knowledge in ‘agamas’ and rituals.

“True meaning of secularism is non-interference of state in religious matters of various denominations. Removal or appointment must adhere to the qualification and experience that have evolved over centuries” he added.

Objecting to use of secularism and constitutional morality — both incongruent with issues related to religion, faith and belief — by courts to intervene in the name of reforms, Mehta said social and religious reforms should be left to the legislature.

The bench prima facie agreed that SC must not be the harbinger of social reforms or reforms in religion which undermine the core belief and faith of devotees. “In the name of reforms, religion itself cannot be harmed,” the bench said.

“What expertise do judges, who are scholars of law, have in religious matters to determine who constitutes a denomination? The shrines of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti and Nizamuddin Auliya and Shirdi Saibaba are visited by devotees belonging to all denominations, sects and religions. Can the court determine which shrine belongs to which faith?” Mehta pressed on.

The SG asked if the followers of Aurobindo consider themselves as a distinct religious group, can SC say they are not? When Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi questioned his view, Mehta said if the followers viewed Aurobindo as God, can any other person dispute that, given that under the Constitution he had the right to freedom of conscience.

When Justice Bagchi said Aurobindo’s idol is not worshipped, Mehta said even in Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj, there is no idol worship, yet they are considered distinct religious sects. Justice Bagchi said interestingly, while Auroville is not considered a religious denomination by the SC, it had acknowledged Anand Margis as one.