The Supreme Court’s order on a recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) directing the Jagannath temple management to consider allowing every visitor “irrespective of his faith to offer respects and to make offerings to the deity” is sensitive and significant.
One can look at the wording in two ways: It could refer to beliefs within Hinduism, or faiths other than Hinduism. If the reference was about permitting people of different faiths belonging to the Hindu religion enter the temple, then the direction of the court becomes unnecessary, as the Jagannath temple is open to all Hindus irrespective of caste, denomination and faith.
However, the direction of the court viewed from an inter-religious angle to consider permitting non-Hindus is of great concern. Some basic questions need to be cleared up first. The first is whether the petitioner who filed the PIL made such a prayer in the petition. The answer is no. The second question is whether any affected person, including any non-Hindu, has made such a prayer before the court. Apparently, no such prayer was made by any such person.
The apex court in its earlier interim order directed a district judge of Puri to give a report on difficulties faced by temple visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in management and suggestions for improvement in the administration of Jagannath temple. The judge submitted a report to the Supreme Court on July 4. The third question is whether, either in the apex court’s earlier order or district judge’s report, there is any reference to permitting entry of non-Hindus to the Jagannath temple. The answer is again no. Hence, the Supreme Court’s direction may be construed as a suo moto order.
What prompted the court to pass such a direction? The order dated July 5 shows it was passed on the basis of a recent judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Another. In its order, the court has additionally quoted an excerpt from the book “To The Best Of My Memory”, written by Justice P B Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment was concerned with the validity of a order, dated 23 June 2006, issued by the Tamil Nadu government as per which any person who is a Hindu and has the requisite qualification and training can be appointed as an archaka in Hindu temples.
This order was challenged with the argument that the appointment of an archaka customarily is done through hereditary succession from within certain Brahmin sects as per the religious scriptures known as Agamas. The government order sought to break the monopoly of Brahmin priests in the offices of archakas. The petitioners, on the other hand, said that doing anything besides what is age-old “custom and usage” would be an infringement on the freedom of religion and “rights of the religious denomination to manage its own affairs.”
While acknowledging the claims of the appellants that archaka appointments could not be made in contravention to customs in the Agamas, the court skirted the core issue, i.e. the constitutionality of the challenged order, and adopted a cautious approach by directing that the validity of the government order will be decided “in each case of appointment of archakas, whenever and wherever it is raised.”
The extract of the judgment regarding Tamil Nadu archakas being referred to as settled law in the Jagannath temple judgment is perplexing.
The referred extract is the first paragraph of the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam judgment, the contents of which are referred to as “precepts” to be kept in minds of the judges. This on the face of it can’t be construed as settled law. No law point is discussed in the extract. It is an observation on Hindu religion. The judgment in no way dealt with allowing a visitor irrespective of his faith to enter any temple, nor did it espouse any settled law on this matter.
The excerpt from the book of Justice P B Gajendragadkar in the order seems to be out of context. The reference was made to a stanza of Bhagavad Gita (9.23) “which means that even devotees of other Gods who worship with full faith, they also worship Me, O son of Kunti, though contrary to the ancient rule.”
The meaning here is that our secularism is based on this principle. The author cited the stanza in the context of his visit to Vithoba and Venkateswara temples.
According to him one may be non-religious, irreligious or religious but he has all the rights of a citizen. The author clarifies he was making a digression to emphasise that when he worshipped Vithoba and Venkateswara, he did not feel it was unusual. Religion in the best sense of the word, for him, is a necessity. Whether the existence of God can be proved or not is a different matter. According to him, the Indian Constitution merely insists that secular and religious matters are different altogether and there is nothing irrational in his outlook in life.
Without getting into a detailed analysis of references made in the Supreme Court order, a palpable disconnect exists between such references and the order.
The laws regulating Hindus have never been static. As needs changed over time, the laws too have evolved. In the process, the courts have been making selective and timely interventions by making a distinction between religious and secular practices or activities. The distinction has been very thin and delicate. Hence, courts have been exercising caution in intervening in essential religious practices.
The Jagannath temple entry issue is complex. It has to be analysed keeping in mind the centuries-old tradition and history of the temple, its elaborate rituals for deities, opinions of Muktimandap and Shankaracharya, Puri, existing law on temple entry, constitutional provisions and public sentiment. The potential consequences of such a step have to be considered too, as it requires setting a new precedent and breaking age-old tradition.
Ashok Kumar Bal
Retired civil servant
Email: ashokkbal@gmail.com