In the Sabarimala case, the Hindu side urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the 30-year-old order on Hinduism. india news
New Delhi: Amid the ‘faith versus fundamental rights’ debate arising out of the traditional ban on entry of women in the age group of 10-50 years into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, a Hindu party on Tuesday requested a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court to review its 30-year-old judgment declaring Hinduism as a “way of life”.Expressing objection to the 1996 ruling by a three-judge bench in the Ramesh Yashwant Prabhu judgment that Hinduism “can broadly be called a way of life and nothing more than that”, a lawyer appearing for the Hindu side said that Hinduism is not a way of life but an oceanic confluence and assimilation of an infinite number of different religious beliefs and faiths.
During the ninth day of proceedings before the bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundaresh, A Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, lawyer DV Singh said that to decide what is an essential Hindu religious practice, the court has to decide what is “Hindu religion and Hinduism”, and suggested that the Supreme Court should consider Bhagavad Gita for this. Can take help of Geeta.This echoes senior advocate MR Shamshad’s request to a nine-judge bench on Thursday to review the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment by a five-judge bench which had rejected the challenge to the government acquisition of the then-disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site and ruled that a mosque was not essential for offering prayers. He had said that the mosque is the soul of Islam and the main faith of Muslims.In the decision of Ramesh Yashwant Prabhu the Supreme Court had said, “When we think of Hinduism, we find it difficult if not impossible to define Hinduism or even to describe it adequately.”“Unlike other religions of the world, Hinduism does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not believe in any one philosophical concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rituals or performances; in fact, it does not satisfy the narrow traditional characteristics of any religion or sect. It can broadly be called a way of life and nothing more,” the court had said.“Generally, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind, and cannot be equated with or equated with religious Hindu fundamentalism… The terms ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be narrowly construed and understood to be confined only to strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India which reflect the way of life of the Indian people,” the judgment said.In the Ismail Farooqui judgment, the Supreme Court had ruled, “A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Muslims may offer prayers anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition (of the disputed site) is not prohibited by the provisions of the Constitution of India.”