‘…But does discrimination happen only in temples?’
he/she says that even in the name of stopping caste discrimination, government interference in temples is justified. But does discrimination happen only in temples? Should religious places of other religions also be nationalized to eliminate discrimination? Jagannathan says that secular laws can be made to stop discrimination, there is no need for government control. he/she says state governments can monitor temples, reprimand them, even intervene, but cannot permanently turn them into government property.
What does the Constitution say?
Jagannathan says that Article 25 gives the right to religious freedom, but it also says that there can be state interference only in Hindu religious institutions. This violates the right to equality before law under Article 14. They question whether the funds of temples can be used only for their operation and administration? Can’t the funds of temples be used to propagate Hinduism like churches and mosques?
‘The temple is not a park…’
Jagannath says temples are not like public undertakings or parks, where everyone has equal rights. Temples are public-private institutions, with their own history and heritage. If some families or groups have exclusive rights to run some temples, this cannot be considered as unjust discrimination against others. he/she says that just as a company’s promoter and his/her heirs cannot be removed just because the company has become too big, the way to reduce family control over temples is through anti-trust laws or by separating them from other businesses. .
‘Churches and mosques are allowed to function as per their wish’
Jagannathan says Indian temples have had different traditions, some conservative and traditional and some liberal. Are we saying that Orthodox temples in India have no right to exist, while Orthodox churches and mosques around the world are allowed to function as they please? Jagannathan says that due to constitutional constraints, the Court has been interfering in religious matters in the name of social justice. In the Sabarimala case, a judge used the argument of untouchability to strike down the unique practice of barring women from entering the temple because Lord Ayyappa is considered celibate. They say that different practice cannot be termed as discrimination, especially when the discrimination is the practice of only one temple and not universal.
Jagannathan says suppose some women decide to build ‘Stree Shakti Mandir’ where only female goddesses are worshiped and only female priests conduct the puja. Would this be considered discrimination against men, or is it the right of free citizens to form their own associations and create institutions with their own rules and traditions?
When will temples be free from government control?
Jagannathan says that late Swami Dayanand Saraswati had filed a petition in 2012 itself, demanding to free the temples from government control, but no decision has been taken yet. The judiciary needs clear vision and courage to deal with this aspect of religious discrimination, as it has been involved in it for decades.
