New Delhi: The Supreme Court Expressing concern on Thursday over arguments supporting sect-based restrictions on temples and monasteries, he said such exclusion could adversely impact Hinduism and divide the society.This comment came during the hearing of petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places by a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. Sabarimala Templeand the extent of religious freedom available to different faiths and sects.The bench also included Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundaresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for devotees of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, argued that Article 26 (b) of the Constitution gives the right to a religious sect to manage its own affairs and would override Article 25 (2) (b), which gives the state the right to open Hindu religious institutions of public nature to all sections of the society.Appearing for the Nair Service Society and other organizations associated with devotees of Lord Ayyappa, Vaidyanathan argued that they constitute a separate religious sect and hence have the right to manage the affairs of the hilltop temple.He submitted that a communal temple could permit worship or restrict it only to members of that sect, while maintaining that public temples should remain open to all.On the issue of access to the Sabarimala temple, he said, “At Sabarimala, there is no discrimination among devotees. There is no bar for Christians or Muslims either, but they must have faith and belief in the divinity of Lord Ayyappa and they have to follow rituals like the 40-day vratam and all the practices prescribed for believers.” No one has been banned and hence, the concept has not been understood.”Vaidyanathan also said that giving primacy to Article 25(2)(b) over Article 26(b) would have a specific impact on Hinduism, as Article 25(2)(b) specifically enables the state to make laws opening Hindu temples to all sections of the society.He also told the court that there are private family temples in Kerala where only members of particular families worship and such temples serve only their sect. Such temples cannot seek funds from the state, private donors or the public as they are not dependent on them, he said.His argument was that if any law has to be made then it will have to meet the criteria of public order, morality or health.He also said that the freedom of conscience of an individual defeats the freedom of community or sect.Referring to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, Vaidyanathan said Justice (retd) DY Chandrachud had wrongly framed the issue.“He asked whether individual rights would prevail over group or collective rights and he wrongly held that individual rights could prevail over collective religious rights,” he said.This line of argument expressed particular concern over its broader impact on Hindu religious practice.Justice B.She said, “Everyone should have access to every temple and monastery. Keep aside the controversy in the Sabarimala verdict (2018). But if you say it is a practice and it is a matter of religion then I will exclude others and only my class, my sect, will go to the temple and no one else, this is not good for Hinduism. Don’t let the religion be adversely affected. It will be prejudicial to the sect.”Justice Arvind Kumar agreed, saying such a boycott would divide the society.Justice Nagarathna further said, ‘If the argument is that only Gowda Saraswat Brahmins should come to the temple, followers of Kanchi Math should only go to Kanchi, they should not go to Sringeri, followers of Sringeri should not go to Kanchi, then it will affect the religion.’He also said that the state can take steps under Article 25(2)(b) to ensure access to temples for all sections of the society.Justice Kumar, responding to Vaidyanathan’s contention that Article 26(B) supersedes Article 25(2)(B), said, “That’s why we said, don’t take the argument too high.”Justice Nagarathna clarified that she was not referring to private family temples and said, “Religion should not be adversely affected.”During the hearing, the bench also discussed the Deoru judgment of 1957, in which the Supreme Court had upheld the Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act. The judgment said that although a temple remains open to all Hindus, certain ceremonial practices reserved for Gowda Saraswat Brahmins are constitutionally acceptable.Justice Kumar also asked Vaidyanathan whether he agreed that Article 26 is not a standalone provision and whether it should be read with Article 25(2) in line with the central government’s position.Vaidyanathan said he disagrees with the Centre’s stand, arguing that Article 25(2) is an enabling provision and does not confer any rights, while Article 26 provides specific rights to a sect.The hearing will resume next week.