New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said if an individual’s fundamental right to religious freedom is considered superior to the similar right of any group or sect, it can have dangerous consequences and the court is not going to be part of the process of destruction of any religion.Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist who was ill-treated when she tried to enter Sabarimala after 2018 scheduled caste The verdict lifted the ban on entry of women in the age group of 10-50, emphasizing their fundamental right to enter the temple. Indira Jaising, appearing for Bindu and another woman Kanakadurga, said there was no religious restriction on women’s entry into any public temple.The matter of religion is a matter of conscience, not for debate: Supreme CourtAppearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundaresh, A Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, lawyer Indira Jaising said Bindu did not dispute the ‘gnostic celibate’ qualities of Ayyappa at Sabarimala, but the practice could not be a ground for violating his fundamental right to enter the temple.Jaisingh said that the Indian Constitution is considered unique across the world because it gives prominence to the fundamental rights of individuals. Jaising said, “If a woman wants to go to a temple, what legal injury is she causing to anyone? If the court wants to rule the other way, let it go ahead and do so and the world will see how the Supreme Court of India is developing its jurisprudence related to women’s rights.”Justice Sundaresh disagreed with his argument and asked that if an individual’s right to religious freedom under Article 25(1) conflicts with the right of a group of devotees or followers of a sect, whose right should prevail?“How do we enforce individual rights when it violates the fundamental rights of others? One’s right cannot be pitted against another under Article 25(1). If we agree with what you say, it will have dangerous consequences. If each devotee approaches a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship differently, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or sect,” he said.Justice Nagarathna agreed with him and said, “This will lead to the destruction of religion and we do not want to be a part of it. Matters of religion are not a subject on which a court or legislature can adjudicate. It cannot be a subject of debate as it is a matter of conscience.”Justice Amanullah asked whether a custom or practice, which has been in place for centuries, should be struck down by the court to ensure that a person must visit a temple despite knowing that it would hurt the religious sentiments of the majority of followers of the sect. The debate will continue on Thursday also.