NEW DELHI: The Center on Wednesday launched a veiled attack on a Tamil Nadu law that wrests control over the appointment of “archakas” in temples, saying the Supreme Court had wrongly classified the appointment of “archakas” as a “secular act” in the past when it was purely a religious decision.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly advocated for a review of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which has developed over the past few decades without taking into account the complexity of issues related to religion, faith and belief and has been unduly influenced by Western jurisprudence where individual freedoms prevail over social conscience and morality. His remarks, while in line with the Modi government’s stance on the scope of judicial intervention in faith-related issues, had an extra dimension due to its timing – it came ahead of the TN Assembly elections. Mehta said that by upholding the TN Act, which wrests away control of the appointment of “archakas” and hands it over to government committees, the SC allows the state to interfere in the religious affairs of sects or sects that maintain religious traditions in temples.
Supreme Court must not be the harbinger of reforms that undermine core beliefs and convictions: SC
“If such a law is approved by the Supreme Court, even Shankara can be repealed,” he said.A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “This does not mean that ‘archakas’ will be above the law and will not be held accountable for their misconduct.”Mehta responded that as long as the appointment of ‘archakas’ in community temples does not violate constitutional norms prohibiting caste discrimination, the community should have the right to appoint as ‘archakas’ people who meet the eligibility criteria of ‘agamas’ and ritual knowledge.“The true meaning of secularism is that the state does not interfere in the religious affairs of various denominations. Dismissal or appointment must adhere to qualifications and experience that have evolved over centuries,” he added.Objecting to the court’s use of secularism and constitutional morality – both of which are inconsistent with issues related to religion, faith and belief – to intervene in the name of reform, Mehta said social and religious reforms should be left to the legislature.The bench preliminarily agreed that the SC cannot be a harbinger of social reform or religious reform as it would undermine the core beliefs and beliefs of believers. “In the name of reform, religion itself cannot be harmed,” the judge said.“What expertise does a judge who is a legal scholar have in religious matters to determine who constitutes a sect? The shrines of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, Nizamuddin Auliya and Shirdi Saibaba are visited by devotees belonging to all sects, sects and religions. Can the court determine which shrine belongs to which faith?” Mehta continued.SG asked if Aurobindo’s followers consider themselves a distinct religious group, can SC say they are not? When a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi challenged his view, Mehta said if followers regard Aurobindo as God, then anyone else can question this as he has the right to freedom of conscience as per the Constitution.When Justice Baki said that Aurobindo’s idols are not worshiped, Mehta said that even in Aryan society and Brahma society, there is no idol worship but they are considered as different religious sects. Interestingly, Justice Bacchi said that while the Supreme Court did not consider Auroville to be a religious sect, it recognized Anand Majith to be one.
' to temples.){kind=link}