New Delhi: The Center on Wednesday made a veiled attack on the Tamil Nadu law taking away the control of appointment of ‘archakas (priests)’ in temples, saying the Supreme Court had in the past wrongly classified the appointment of ‘archakas’ as a “secular act” while it was purely a religious decision.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made a strong plea for a review of the jurisprudence developed by the SC over the last few decades without considering the complexity of issues relating to religion, faith and belief and being unduly influenced by Western jurisprudence, where individual liberty trumped social conscience and morality. His pitch, while in sync with the Modi government’s stance on the scope of judiciary intervention on faith-related issues, also takes on an added dimension because of the timing – it came ahead of the assembly elections in TN. Mehta said that by upholding the TN law, which took away the control of appointment of ‘archakas’ and vested it in government boards, the Supreme Court allowed the state to interfere in the religious affairs of a sect or sect maintaining its religious traditions in its temples.

Court should not be the harbinger of reforms that weaken core faith and belief: Supreme Court

He said, “If such a law gets the approval of the Supreme Court, then Shankaracharya can also be removed.”“This does not mean that ‘archaks’ will be above the law and will not be accountable for their misconduct,” a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said.Mehta, replying, said that as long as the appointment of ‘archakas’ by a community temple is not in violation of constitutional norms prohibiting caste-based discrimination, the community should have the right to appoint individuals as ‘archakas’ if they meet the eligibility criteria of ‘Aagam’ and knowledge in rituals.“The true meaning of secularism is non-interference of the state in the religious matters of different sects. “Removal or appointment should follow the competency and experience developed over centuries,” he said.Objecting to the use of secularism and constitutional morality inconsistent with issues related to religion, faith and belief by the courts to intervene in the name of reforms, Mehta said that social and religious reforms should be left to the legislature.The bench prima facie agreed that the Supreme Court should not be a harbinger of social reforms or reforms in religion which weaken the basic faith and belief of the devotees. The bench said, “Religion cannot be harmed in the name of reforms.”“What expertise do judges, who are scholars of law, have in religious matters to determine what constitutes a sect? The shrines of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and Nizamuddin Auliya and Shirdi Saibaba are visited by devotees of all sects, sects and religions. Can the court determine which temple belongs to which religion?” Mehta applied pressure.The SG asked if Aurobindo’s followers consider themselves a separate religious group, can the Supreme Court say that they are not? When Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi questioned his view, Mehta said that if followers see Aurobindo as God, can any other person dispute this, noting that under the Constitution they have the right to freedom of conscience.When Justice Bagchi said that Aurobindo’s idol is not worshipped, Mehta said that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj also do not worship idols, yet they are considered separate religious sects. Justice Bagchi interestingly noted that, while Auroville has not been considered a religious sect by the Supreme Court, it had accepted the Ananda Margis as a religious sect.